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

Groups > alt.astronomy > #275017

Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the schizophrenic paranoid-delusional
woman-stalking failed truck driver), in 
<news:XI-dnVwTvLEa3HXInZ2dnUU7-cmdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump 
head first into the wood chipper again:

> Sure must have been neat to learn all you know about Physics from watching 
> Disney Cartoons.

Too bad you're too fucking stupid to understand even cartoon physics, 
let alone physics in the real world.

A Boeing plane wing strength test:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ai2HmvAXcU0>
The wing went to 154% of the stresses possible in any flight
situation. IOW, you could dive the thing at 600 MPH and pull out at 5
G, and the wings would survive... how do we know this? Because it's
happened. Look up China Airlines Flight 006.

Also research the Empire State Building airplane crash... a 10-ton
Mitchell B-25 bomber at a much lower speed, not as strongly built as
modern aircraft, crashed into the Empire State Building... a
grid-constructed building of *much* stronger construction than the WTC
towers. And it ripped a hole right through that building's outer wall
(in fact,the main fuselage impact hole was spread over two floors, so
the plane ripped through the flooring structural steel) and in fact
some parts went right through the entire building. Exactly as happened
at the WTC towers. The Empire State Building stood because it had
asbestos fireproofing, plentiful structural concrete, and was of the
much stronger grid construction.

<http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com/2012/09/american-airlines-77-hit-pentagon.html>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4q35xHzjxB0>
Note how the F-4 Phantom jet at 500 MPH punches through the 3.66
meters thick concrete wall. Note especially the side view at 0:36
showing the wing slicing through the concrete. You'll note the plane
turns to confetti, concentrates its force in a very small area, and
punches through that very small area.

Remember, both the thickness and the grade of steel used in the WTC
towers went down as the height of the building increased. At the top,
the outer truss frame members were A36 steel of only 1/4" thick. Where
the first plane hit it was likely on 5/16" thick. And those truss
frame members were spaced 6 feet 8 inches apart. Not a lot of metal to
punch through at all.

Now, for the kooks who are still disbelievers... 
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/adventure/a8683/behold-the-900-mph-supersonic-ping-pong-bazooka-15097897/>
Ping-pong ball through a plywood paddle.

You moron. LOL

> BTW why didn't Flight 175 cast a shadow?  <G>

Your retarded brain believes every stupid goddamned thing you read on
the internet or watch on YouTube. If you could afford a TV, you'd be
the world's biggest "TV Hugger", you pathetic moronic piece of shit.

Uh oh... what's this, you fucking retard?
<http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html>
<http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/summaryimages/shadowsequence.jpg>

Oh, is that a high-resolution high-framerate sequence of photos that
prove you're a delusional retard? Yeah, it is. Take your meds, Roger.

Moron. LOL

> Rocky

Moron. LOL

-- 

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

Back to alt.astronomy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Ping K Wills:  What truth??? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-02 15:40 -0500
  Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth??? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 15:51 -0500
    Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth???  ?s 4 K "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-02 16:19 -0500
      Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth???  ?s 4 K "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-03 04:14 -0500
        Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth???  Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-03 07:47 -0500
          Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-03 17:10 -0500
            Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-03 23:29 +0100
              Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-03 19:07 -0400
              Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 09:39 -0500
            Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 09:46 -0500
          Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-04 07:17 +0200
            Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-04 23:29 +0100
          Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth???  Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 03:59 -0500
          Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-05 06:41 +0200
          Re: Ping K Wills: What truth??? Another ? 4 Mr. Disney Physics major Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-09-05 18:27 +0200
    Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth??? "Bast" <fakename@nomail.invalid> - 2015-09-03 05:38 -0400
      Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth??? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 03:57 -0500
        Re: Ping K Wills:  What truth??? "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-09-04 10:00 -0500

csiph-web