Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #566498 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-29 12:34 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-03-31 14:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 154 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Why You Should Care About Nukes Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 12:34 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 12:37 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-03-29 12:59 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 11:25 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 05:08 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 12:33 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-02 15:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-02 20:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 06:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-03 16:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 12:33 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-03 18:06 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-03 21:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 05:45 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 09:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 18:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 14:30 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 20:10 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 06:34 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:23 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 17:52 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 13:10 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 18:37 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:29 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 19:59 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 17:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 22:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 07:14 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 18:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 14:46 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 20:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 15:56 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 21:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 17:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:46 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-08 03:35 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:16 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:51 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 00:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:04 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:16 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:44 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 15:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 20:57 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 06:51 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 17:09 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:42 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 10:51 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 14:56 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:29 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 21:23 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:36 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 21:41 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 21:19 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:34 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:34 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 11:57 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 10:12 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:09 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 15:00 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 21:10 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 06:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 15:47 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-12 19:32 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 16:19 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:18 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:28 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 07:52 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:20 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 11:00 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 01:20 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:53 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 01:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 18:06 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:12 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 19:47 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 15:27 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-11 20:58 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-12 12:53 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 11:14 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 14:59 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-12 18:31 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 12:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 12:53 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 16:09 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 16:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-06 22:08 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 16:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 21:40 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 17:02 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:47 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-08 03:39 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-08 18:05 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:11 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 16:20 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 12:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-10 17:54 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-11 14:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:15 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:39 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:21 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-10 04:18 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-11 14:44 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 13:43 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 21:28 -0400
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Cujo DeSockpuppet <cujo@petitmorte.net> - 2016-04-02 23:27 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-03-29 18:07 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-03-29 14:00 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-30 14:24 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-03-30 15:21 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 03:02 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 04:07 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 14:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 07:59 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 15:36 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 09:41 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 18:22 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 14:31 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 20:11 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 16:04 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 21:42 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-07 17:05 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 22:49 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-09 13:27 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 04:22 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-03-31 12:49 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-31 19:22 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 09:44 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 16:06 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-04 14:33 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-04 21:33 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 06:38 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 12:54 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 14:27 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 12:55 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 19:31 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 19:13 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:32 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2016-04-06 23:39 +0100
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 04:45 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-04 18:25 +0000
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 04:01 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 04:23 -0500
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes vishnushelat@gmail.com - 2016-03-31 12:28 -0700
Re: Why You Should Care About Nukes "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-31 14:13 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568225 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings so >>> what >>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >> >> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a building, > > As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that collapsed and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <zf-dnQEVFdmozJjKnZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568337 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings so >>>> what >>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>> >>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a building, >> >> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent > > Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that > collapsed > and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. But for the wrong size building you idiot. There are over 80 floors of debris that are unaccountable for. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 and then compare them to small buildings yourself. DUH. Oh I get it, you can't tell the different between the seismic reading from a controlled demolition of a 20 story building or a 110 story building that was nuked. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sk1gtc-f1j.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568340 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings so >>>>> what >>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>> >>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a building, >>> >>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >> >> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >> collapsed >> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. > > Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 and > then compare them to small buildings yourself. I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter lack of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any kind, kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 14:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iMednY1B6awm_pjKnZ2dnUU7-XvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568348 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:sk1gtc-f1j.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings >>>>>> so >>>>>> what >>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>> >>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a building, >>>> >>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>> >>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>> collapsed >>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >> >> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 and >> then compare them to small buildings yourself. > > I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter lack > of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any > kind, kook. And you failed to compare them with a Controlled Demolition of a 20 story buildings back then too. DUH Gaud you are st00pid. The fact remains, not only do the seismic readings fail to account for over 80 floors of debris hitting the ground so do the photos of the crime scene photos: <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg But those 80 floors didn't disappear they floated away as proven by the tremendous clouds of debris after the Twin Towers were MRR nuked. The truth is right in front of your eyes and all you do is lie about your earlier post instead. I take it from your lies you want to work for the government sponsored media. Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 19:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ae6gtc-7gj.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568359 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:sk1gtc-f1j.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings >>>>>>> so >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>> >>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a building, >>>>> >>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>> >>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>>> collapsed >>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>> >>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 and >>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >> >> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter lack >> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any >> kind, kook. > > But those 80 floors didn't disappear they floated away Nope, they wound up in the basement levels for the most part, kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 17:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <EZidnfg68NCwFZjKnZ2dnUU7-YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568377 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:ae6gtc-7gj.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:sk1gtc-f1j.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings >>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>> building, >>>>>> >>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>>>> collapsed >>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>> >>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 >>>> and >>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>> >>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter lack >>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any >>> kind, kook. >> >> But those 80 floors didn't disappear they floated away > > Nope, they wound up in the basement levels for the most part, kook. ROTFLMAO because the seismic records do not prove 110 floors of the Twin Towers hit the ground but only 20-26 floors so why didn't the other 80+ floors hit the ground? <G> And don't forget to look at the holes in the area and the fact that nothing even tried to crush the "Surviving Corners." <G> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg You or NIST can not explain the crime scene photos but MRR nukes can. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uiegtc-6ak.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568410 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:ae6gtc-7gj.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:sk1gtc-f1j.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story buildings >>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>>> building, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>>>>> collapsed >>>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 >>>>> and >>>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>>> >>>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter lack >>>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any >>>> kind, kook. >>> >>> But those 80 floors didn't disappear they floated away >> >> Nope, they wound up in the basement levels for the most part, kook. > > ROTFLMAO because the seismic records do not prove 110 floors of the Twin > Towers hit the ground Nope, they don't, because there is nothing to form a baseline for such an event but the seismic records clearly show there was no explosion of any kind, including nuclear. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 07:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <MqydndJGkNXZ0pvKnZ2dnUU7-LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568413 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:uiegtc-6ak.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:ae6gtc-7gj.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:sk1gtc-f1j.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story >>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>>>> building, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>>>>>> collapsed >>>>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 >>>>>> and >>>>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>>>> >>>>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter >>>>> lack >>>>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any >>>>> kind, kook. >>>> >>>> But those 80 floors didn't disappear they floated away >>> >>> Nope, they wound up in the basement levels for the most part, kook. >> >> ROTFLMAO because the seismic records do not prove 110 floors of the Twin >> Towers hit the ground > > Nope, they don't, because there is nothing to form a baseline for such > an event but the seismic records clearly show there was no explosion > of any kind, including nuclear. BULLSHIT because you have seen there was background seismic activity the entire time and an MRR nuke can look like background seismic activity. And while you are at it why did WTC7 only make a .6 on the Richter scale when a jackhammer can do that? The fact remains something else was involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center and it left it mark on the building north of WTC7 and that mark was the dead give away MRR nukes were used because they have a circular blast pattern and there was no way to avoid destroying Fiterman Hall when WTC7 was MRR nuked. So the seismic activity for two 110 story buildings was way way too small for 110 story buildings and the seismic activity for WTC7 was comparable to a jackhammer. Now for your first point ever tell me why? But you can't tell me why because NIST couldn't either. <G> And don't forget the following photo does not show the remains of a crashed jet but the remains of a two 110 story buildings after a detonated MRR nuke or two or three. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 18:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j7mitc-mir.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568531 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:uiegtc-6ak.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:ae6gtc-7gj.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:sk1gtc-f1j.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story >>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>> building, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>>>>>>> collapsed >>>>>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on 9/11/01 >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>>>>> >>>>>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter >>>>>> lack >>>>>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of any >>>>>> kind, kook. >>>>> >>>>> But those 80 floors didn't disappear they floated away >>>> >>>> Nope, they wound up in the basement levels for the most part, kook. >>> >>> ROTFLMAO because the seismic records do not prove 110 floors of the Twin >>> Towers hit the ground >> >> Nope, they don't, because there is nothing to form a baseline for such >> an event but the seismic records clearly show there was no explosion >> of any kind, including nuclear. > > BULLSHIT because you have seen there was background seismic activity the > entire time and an MRR nuke can look like background seismic activity. Delusional nonsense; there is always background seismic activity and an expolosion of any kind has a large and unique signature. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 14:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tIydnXEUVuqXJJvKnZ2dnUU7-U3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568627 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:j7mitc-mir.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:uiegtc-6ak.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:ae6gtc-7gj.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:sk1gtc-f1j.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:n0vftc-moi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:iauatc-s12.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The seismec readings were way too small for 110 story >>>>>>>>>>>> buildings >>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>>>>> happened to over 80 floors of debris? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The seismic readings were appropriate for the collapse of a >>>>>>>>>>> building, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I stated before the seismic reading were consistent >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, the seismic readings were consistent with the buildings that >>>>>>>>> collapsed >>>>>>>>> and non-existant for any explosions, nuclear or otherwise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why don't you just find out what the seismic readings were on >>>>>>>> 9/11/01 >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> then compare them to small buildings yourself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I did that months ago but you ignored the data as well as the utter >>>>>>> lack >>>>>>> of data that would have been there had there been an explosion of >>>>>>> any >>>>>>> kind, kook. >>>>>> >>>>>> But those 80 floors didn't disappear they floated away >>>>> >>>>> Nope, they wound up in the basement levels for the most part, kook. >>>> >>>> ROTFLMAO because the seismic records do not prove 110 floors of the >>>> Twin >>>> Towers hit the ground >>> >>> Nope, they don't, because there is nothing to form a baseline for such >>> an event but the seismic records clearly show there was no explosion >>> of any kind, including nuclear. >> >> BULLSHIT because you have seen there was background seismic activity the >> entire time and an MRR nuke can look like background seismic activity. > > Delusional nonsense; there is always background seismic activity and an > expolosion of any kind has a large and unique signature. ROTFLMAO because you don't know squat about MRR nukes and you have failed to explain why the "seismic signature" of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all a lot smaller than controlled demolitions of the same size buildings. 9/11 was a big lie, so are you and you can't face the fact you have no explanation for why so much of the very bottom of the Twin Towers survived when they were rumored to have collapsed down. <GRIN> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 20:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v3sitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568655 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > ROTFLMAO because you don't know squat about MRR nukes and you have failed to > explain why the "seismic signature" of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all a lot > smaller than controlled demolitions of the same size buildings. I at least know what MRR actually means and the seismic signatures were smaller because there was no exposion of any kind, nuclear or otherwise. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 15:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <leednemTGMwDVJvKnZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568679 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:v3sitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > >> ROTFLMAO because you don't know squat about MRR nukes and you have failed >> to >> explain why the "seismic signature" of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all a lot >> smaller than controlled demolitions of the same size buildings. > > I at least know what MRR actually means and the seismic signatures were > smaller because there was no exposion of any kind, nuclear or otherwise. ROTFLMAO because the truth is they never crashed to the ground and most of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 floated away in a great big cloud of debris before they could ever make it to the ground. You just are not even trying to think because the very small seismic signatures of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 hitting the ground are something you should have looked into but you just let the media/government bullshit you to their hearts content. Once again, compare seismic signatures of the collapse of equal sized buildings with the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 and you will see that something is strange especially if those three buildings were made out of something besides paper which they were. Why you avoid the facts and keep deleting the following photo that you can not explain are boring me. http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 21:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vk0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568698 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:v3sitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >>> ROTFLMAO because you don't know squat about MRR nukes and you have failed >>> to >>> explain why the "seismic signature" of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all a lot >>> smaller than controlled demolitions of the same size buildings. >> >> I at least know what MRR actually means and the seismic signatures were >> smaller because there was no exposion of any kind, nuclear or otherwise. > > ROTFLMAO because the truth is they never crashed to the ground Then what were those many tons of debris dug out of the basement levels and hualed away from, kook? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 17:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mP2dneMFb_fkRZvKnZ2dnUU7-THNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568718 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:vk0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:v3sitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> ROTFLMAO because you don't know squat about MRR nukes and you have >>>> failed >>>> to >>>> explain why the "seismic signature" of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all a >>>> lot >>>> smaller than controlled demolitions of the same size buildings. >>> >>> I at least know what MRR actually means and the seismic signatures were >>> smaller because there was no exposion of any kind, nuclear or otherwise. >> >> ROTFLMAO because the truth is they never crashed to the ground > > Then what were those many tons of debris dug out of the basement levels > and hualed away from, kook? Why don't you show me there was ever any debris in the basement you asshole. And how could any debris make it to the basements without crushing the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers. SEE: http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg I've seen videos of people walking around in the basements of the Twin Towers after 9/11/01 and a lot of the basements survived. The fact still remains the seismic readings of what hit the ground on 9/11 were a hell of a lot smaller than they should have been and if you don't want to say nukes were responsible then something vaporized three buildings before they could crash to the ground. <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 22:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bj4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568723 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:vk0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:v3sitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> ROTFLMAO because you don't know squat about MRR nukes and you have >>>>> failed >>>>> to >>>>> explain why the "seismic signature" of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all a >>>>> lot >>>>> smaller than controlled demolitions of the same size buildings. >>>> >>>> I at least know what MRR actually means and the seismic signatures were >>>> smaller because there was no exposion of any kind, nuclear or otherwise. >>> >>> ROTFLMAO because the truth is they never crashed to the ground >> >> Then what were those many tons of debris dug out of the basement levels >> and hualed away from, kook? > > Why don't you show me there was ever any debris in the basement you asshole. View any of the many photos of the dump trucks hauling it out, kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 03:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <YfqdnQ4UkaTH8JrKnZ2dnUU7-T3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568741 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:bj4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:vk0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:v3sitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> ROTFLMAO because you don't know squat about MRR nukes and you have >>>>>> failed >>>>>> to >>>>>> explain why the "seismic signature" of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all a >>>>>> lot >>>>>> smaller than controlled demolitions of the same size buildings. >>>>> >>>>> I at least know what MRR actually means and the seismic signatures >>>>> were >>>>> smaller because there was no exposion of any kind, nuclear or >>>>> otherwise. >>>> >>>> ROTFLMAO because the truth is they never crashed to the ground >>> >>> Then what were those many tons of debris dug out of the basement levels >>> and hualed away from, kook? >> >> Why don't you show me there was ever any debris in the basement you >> asshole. > > View any of the many photos of the dump trucks hauling it out, kook. And you could not find a URL of one why? <G> Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2f8ltc-3q6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #568880 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:bj4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:vk0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:v3sitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> ROTFLMAO because you don't know squat about MRR nukes and you have >>>>>>> failed >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> explain why the "seismic signature" of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all a >>>>>>> lot >>>>>>> smaller than controlled demolitions of the same size buildings. >>>>>> >>>>>> I at least know what MRR actually means and the seismic signatures >>>>>> were >>>>>> smaller because there was no exposion of any kind, nuclear or >>>>>> otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> ROTFLMAO because the truth is they never crashed to the ground >>>> >>>> Then what were those many tons of debris dug out of the basement levels >>>> and hualed away from, kook? >>> >>> Why don't you show me there was ever any debris in the basement you >>> asshole. >> >> View any of the many photos of the dump trucks hauling it out, kook. > > And you could not find a URL of one why? It would be redundant; you have been shown such many times before, kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 04:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qeOdnTbLnoRbi5fKnZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569015 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:2f8ltc-3q6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:bj4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:vk0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:v3sitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO because you don't know squat about MRR nukes and you have >>>>>>>> failed >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> explain why the "seismic signature" of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>> smaller than controlled demolitions of the same size buildings. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I at least know what MRR actually means and the seismic signatures >>>>>>> were >>>>>>> smaller because there was no exposion of any kind, nuclear or >>>>>>> otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> ROTFLMAO because the truth is they never crashed to the ground >>>>> >>>>> Then what were those many tons of debris dug out of the basement >>>>> levels >>>>> and hualed away from, kook? >>>> >>>> Why don't you show me there was ever any debris in the basement you >>>> asshole. >>> >>> View any of the many photos of the dump trucks hauling it out, kook. >> >> And you could not find a URL of one why? > > It would be redundant; you have been shown such many times before, kook. The funny thing is that before anything was hauled out of Ground Zero shit was hauled in to help keep the radiation level down. The fact remains you can not list the seismic records for the Twin Towers or WTC7 and prove that they prove two 110 story buildings collapsed and on 47 story building collapsed because the seismic records fit a 20 story building, a 26 story building and a jackhammer instead. <G> And the reason why the seismic records do not add up to the size of the buildings is the buildings were vaporized before they could crash to the ground. DUH Rocky
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11bqtc-6hn.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #569397 |
In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: > > <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:2f8ltc-3q6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>> >>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>> news:bj4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:vk0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:v3sitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO because you don't know squat about MRR nukes and you have >>>>>>>>> failed >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> explain why the "seismic signature" of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were all >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>>> smaller than controlled demolitions of the same size buildings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I at least know what MRR actually means and the seismic signatures >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> smaller because there was no exposion of any kind, nuclear or >>>>>>>> otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ROTFLMAO because the truth is they never crashed to the ground >>>>>> >>>>>> Then what were those many tons of debris dug out of the basement >>>>>> levels >>>>>> and hualed away from, kook? >>>>> >>>>> Why don't you show me there was ever any debris in the basement you >>>>> asshole. >>>> >>>> View any of the many photos of the dump trucks hauling it out, kook. >>> >>> And you could not find a URL of one why? >> >> It would be redundant; you have been shown such many times before, kook. > > The funny thing is that before anything was hauled out of Ground Zero shit > was hauled in to help keep the radiation level down. Only in your delusions as there was no radiation and no nukes as shown by seismograph readings. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 12:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sJ6dncMiP6z7F5fKnZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #569462 |
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:11bqtc-6hn.ln1@mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >> >> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:2f8ltc-3q6.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>> news:bj4jtc-41t.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:vk0jtc-5ms.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:v3sitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics Rocky <wookiee@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO because you don't know squat about MRR nukes and you >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> failed >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> explain why the "seismic signature" of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>>> lot >>>>>>>>>> smaller than controlled demolitions of the same size buildings. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I at least know what MRR actually means and the seismic signatures >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> smaller because there was no exposion of any kind, nuclear or >>>>>>>>> otherwise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ROTFLMAO because the truth is they never crashed to the ground >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then what were those many tons of debris dug out of the basement >>>>>>> levels >>>>>>> and hualed away from, kook? >>>>>> >>>>>> Why don't you show me there was ever any debris in the basement you >>>>>> asshole. >>>>> >>>>> View any of the many photos of the dump trucks hauling it out, kook. >>>> >>>> And you could not find a URL of one why? >>> >>> It would be redundant; you have been shown such many times before, kook. >> >> The funny thing is that before anything was hauled out of Ground Zero >> shit >> was hauled in to help keep the radiation level down. > > Only in your delusions as there was no radiation and no nukes as shown > by seismograph readings. THEN EXPLAIN WHY THE SEISMOGRAPH READING PROVE ONLY 20 FLOORS OF WTC2 hit the ground 26 floors of WTC1 hit the ground and a jackhammer could hit the ground as hard as WTC7 did. ROTFLMAO If you don't want to say nukes vaporized three buildings before they could crash to the ground then you want to say directed energy vaporized them first? That's OK with me but you will not get me to fall for that. Rocky
[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