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

Groups > alt.astronomy > #274475

Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim)

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 woman-stalking failed truck driver and
deadly menace behind the wheel), in
<news:OYqdnZJua7ds7n7InZ2dnUU7-ImdnZ2d@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message 
> news:m37cbc-ump.ln1@mail.specsol.com...

>> In sci.physics Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking
>> failed truck driver and deadly menace behind the wheel)
>> <wookiee@att.net> wrote:

>>> FYI I downloaded all the NIST reports before they broke them into pieces 
>>> and made the hard to make heads or tails out of them.

So you admit your puny little underpowered brain can't understand
reality. And yet somehow you believe a woman-stalking failed truck
driver is smart enough to have uncovered the world's largest
conspiracy, which violates several laws of physics and thus is
impossible. LOL

IOW, you're a paranoid-delusional schizophrenic off his meds, Roger
Wittekind. Take your meds, Roger.

Moron. LOL

>> OK, so you downloaded them.
>>
>> Did you read and understand them?

> I looked for the blood and guts and all I could see was they were only 
> hypotheses where their test were not real world test but test run on 
> cartoons.  <G>

Those sophisticated CAD and physics programs used to digitally mimic
the behavior of the twin towers and WTC7 are considered "cartoons" by
the woman-stalking failed truck driver... and now we see *why* his
broken brain can't comprehend reality. LOL

>>> Where the Twin Towers are concerned NIST lied about the facts they 
>>> learned from their real life experiments as proven by Kevin Ryan
>>> who was in on those test.

>> One guy making a youtube video proves nothing.

> Bu<SMACKAKOOK!>

Several idiotic retards all compounding their stupidity in a giant
stupidity circle-jerk doesn't make them any less collectively wrong
than each of them are individually wrong, you ko0k.

For a perfect example, take a look at all the libtard Klimate
Katastrophe Kooks bleating "zOMG! Global Warmings! DUURRRHHH!"...
while data from NASA, UAH, RSS and UK Met proves the planet's been
cooling for ~18 years as TSI decreases.

Moron. LOL

>>> And as I've stated before NIST didn't do anything to explain why so much 
>>> of the Twin Towers remained standing.  See:
>>>  http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

>> Random chance, get over it.

> ROTFLMAO  That bullshit might be acceptable if it only happend to one of the 
> Twin Towers but it happened to both of them<SMACKAKOOK!>

And for good reason... because the building designers failed to take
into account the loss of cooperative support between the floor spars
and the outer truss frame via the viscoelastic dampers, and they tied
all the truss frame sections together at one single floor on every
floor where there were mechanical rooms, making a weak point in the
outer truss frame.

Message-ID: <2d28aff133d1feb4ad15475a1cb36936@dizum.com>
========================================================
========================================================
How the towers fell has already been explained to you, that the
viscoelastic dampers, the lack of staggered bolt connections of the
outer truss frame at mechanical room floors, and the inferior spray-on
fireproofing were the key. The building designers didn't account for
the fact that a plane strike would take out sections of outer truss
frame and thus the viscoelastic dampers that held the truss frame from
bowing inward or outward and the floor spars from drooping downward.
The truss frame gave vertical support to the floor spars, the floor
spars gave horizontal support to the truss frame, through those
viscoelastic dampers. Quite literally, a house of cards.

Thus, the floor spars, with no perimeter vertical support from the
destroyed viscoelastic dampers, bowed downward in the area of the
plane strike and the fire melted the viscoelastic dampers in other
areas. The floor spars drooped, putting an uneven load on the central
column, which had been weakened by fire because a change in federal
regulations prohibited the construction crew from continuing to use
asbestos all the way to the top of the building, so they used the
inferior spray-on insulation.

Because the designers had tied all outer truss frame members together
at one floor on the floors that had mechanical rooms (they were
staggered everywhere else), the forces broke that single-line truss
frame connection at those mechanical room floors, bolted together with
only two small 5/8" bolts per truss frame section... thus not just the
floors in the area of the fire were affected... *all* the floor spars
above the top-most mechanical floor below the fire had lost their
vertical support and were thus transferring uneven force to the
central column through the top-hat truss and the outer truss frame
above the mechanical room floor.

The top-hat truss transferred the uneven load to the central column,
magnifying the buckling force the column was experiencing. Once the
central column was heat-weakened enough to exceed its plastic
deformation limit, it slumped (causing the shaking), which ripped even
more viscoelastic dampers loose, which allowed even more floor spars
to bow downward, which ripped even more viscoelastic dampers loose,
etc., etc. as the building fell.

The collapse of the truss frame at the mechanical room floor can be
seen in the videos as the building seems to collapse like an accordion
just after the collapse starts, *below* the area of the fire... that
was a mechanical room floor, where all the truss frames were bolted
together on one floor, rather than being staggered as they were on
other floors. The floor spars failed and drooped, they pulled apart
the viscoelastic dampers, putting uneven force on the central column,
the central column buckled, ripping apart even more viscoelastic
dampers, and it all came crashing down.

As the building collapses, one can see sections of the truss frame
being ejected from the sides of the buildings, proof that the
viscoelastic dampers had failed, the truss frame had bowed outward as
the building fell, and thus the total load was transferred to the
weakened central column, perpetuating the collapse.

The building designers were warned of just such a scenario by
competent building designers as far back as 1971, but they ignored the
warnings.

Kook. LOL
========================================================
========================================================

Take your meds, Roger Wittekind.

Moron. LOL
 
>>> But the photo above considers where underground nukes would have to be
>>> placed to leave the walls standing from the Twin Towers standing strong.

>> Wild conjecture.

Not just wild conjecture, but completely impossible conjecture. When
one's kooky conspiracy theory violates even one law of physics, it
becomes impossible... when it violates several laws of physics, it
moves into the realm of nutjob rantings. LOL

> And neither you or NIST have any reason why outside walls of both the Twin 
> Towers stood strong but people that know about NCDs do.  <G>

Because they were outside the 'fall shadow' of the towers. The towers
fell at a slight angle, meaning there's no way it was a controlled
demolition of any sort. That you keep trying to use this as "evidence"
to support your kooky conspiracy theory when it actually refutes it
proves just how broken your brain is, Roger Wittekind.

Moron. LOL

>>> Where WTC7 is concerned NIST tried to hide the fact that WTC7 fell at 
>>> 100% free fa<SMACKAKOOK!>

Bullshit. I've already posted several times the engineering analysis
showing WTC7 didn't fall at freefall speed. And you're forgetting the
large bulge in the side of WTC7 that was seen just before it
collapsed, a result of the structural steel first expanding, then
sagging when it was blocked from expanding any more. That sagging
precipitated the collapse.

>> As the fall wasn't instrumented, all anyone can do is us averages of
>> whatever data is available.

> Doesn't matter because WTC7 clearly came down in a symetrical fashion and 
> NIST never addressed that issue either.  As a matter of fact the cartoon 
> that NIST made of WTC7 does not even show the symetrical aspect of WTC7. 
> See:
> 
> WTC 7 NIST Model vs. Reality
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc>

Whoopsie... see the roof starting to collapse from the left-hand side
of the building, starting at 0:16 of the video, prior to the overall
collapse of the building, Ko0k?

That's the textbook definition of "progressive collapse", you
brainfucked retard. The interior of the building had been so gutted by
fire that the roof could no longer support itself. It fell through and
ripped what remaining structural steel there was away, precipitating
the collapse.

See how the wall facing the camera kind of folds inward immediately
after the roof collapses, Ko0k?

See the computer physics simulation of the collapse starting at 1:01
of the video, showing the roof collapsing, exactly as was seen in the
actual building, Ko0K?

You're just a schizophrenic paranoid-delusional kook off his meds,
Roger Wittekind. Take your meds, Roger. LOL

>> How it fell for the first 100 feet is consistant with a LOT of other
>> things.

> And your outright lie

That your broken paranoid-delusional schizophrenia-suffering brain
labels reality a lie is noted, Roger Wittekind. LOL

> is based on what website?  If there is one.  <G>

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc>

Moron. LOL

>> So you downloaded the NIST reports but didn't read them

> It<SMACKAKOOK!>

Moron.

> Rocky

Now, get to addressing the 20 ways your kook conspiracy theory
violates the laws of physics:

======================================================
1) Your estimation of the time between detonation and the time of
collapse puts the nukes between from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep below
the towers, a depth we don't even have the technology to drill to
today, let alone back in 1968. Not to mention the fact that at that
depth, the temperature is so high things like metal *melt*. That's
*why* we can't drill much deeper than the 7.636 miles of the Al
Shaheen oil well in Qatar (the deepest hole *ever* dug in human
history)... the equipment fails. That's why the Kola Superdeep
Borehole was abandoned at 7.619 miles deep.

2) The claimed "EMP pulse" in the WCBS video *you* provided wasn't an
EMP pulse at all, it was satellite uplink interference. If it'd been a
nuke EMP (especially one sized 150 kt), the nanosecond time frame of
the explosion (and thus the sharp peak of the EMP) would have caused
the camera's electronics to burn out. No amount of shielding would
have been sufficient to prevent that. That there is video of the
immediate aftermath proves there was no nuke, especially one sized
your claimed 150 kt, which would have destroyed all electronics for
dozens of miles radius.

3) The radiation experienced was of such short duration that there's
no way it was neutron or gamma bombardment from a nuke. If it had been
from a nuke the metal in the buildings would have shown high levels of
radioactivity for decades. It was found to be beta radiation from the
tritium in the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement weapon sights
that was the source. That you're gullible enough not to know that a
nuke would spread radiation far and wide is testament to how
delusional you are.

4) No nuclear detonation byproducts were found at the WTC complex or
anywhere in NYC (MID: <e62c14c89ab831a63f27243e265c711a@dizum.com>).
They found tritium from the aircraft exit signs and law enforcement
weapons sites, radium from industrial sources unrelated to nuclear
weapons and background levels for all other sources of radiation.

5) The seismic waves caused by a small 150 kt nuke wouldn't be
sufficient to drop the buildings, it'd barely even be felt by people
in the vicinity, especially with the bombs buried, as you k'lamed,
from 37.28 to 96.93 *miles* deep. It would take on the order of 2
MEGAtons to do so, especially at the depths you k'lame the bombs were
buried.

6) The trigger that sets off the nuclear explosion is a neutron
source. It naturally radioactively decays over time, and its decay
byproducts, the elements the neutron source transmutes into as it
decays, include xenon, which is a neutron absorber. It's called xenon
poisoning. Any bomb that has sat for 33 years without its trigger
being replenished will not have a trigger that is viable to start any
sort of nuclear chain reaction.

7) I've provided a video from *inside* one of the towers *as* *it*
*was* *collapsing*, showing the vibration from the buckling vertical
support column and *NO* EMP:
======================
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xYjoSvzWeo>
You'll note the massive shaking from the central support column
buckling, but *NO* EMP. And that was INSIDE the WTC tower. No amount
of shielding would have saved that camera from a nuke EMP.
======================

8) Why aren't you explaining how those supposed nukes were going to
survive at a depth of 37.28 miles (where the temperature would be
approximately 960 degrees F) to 96.93 miles (where the temperature
would be approximately 1840 degrees F), Ko0K?

9) Explain how a nuclear weapon can direct its explosion through a
hole without any of the compressive blast going out into surrounding
rock.

10) Explain how 19 nukes (according to you, another leap of logic
taken by your broken brain to explain away the 19 instances of
satellite uplink interference in the video *you* provided) were
detonated at the WTC complex in rapid succession, yet no ill effects
were experienced by electronics, the electrical grid or aircraft.

11) Why aren't you explaining how the personnel you claim were sent
down to service those nukes (because now that you know the
neutron-source triggers for nuclear weapons require replacement on a
periodic basis, your broken brain *had* to construct an entire
facility at 37.28 to 96.93 miles deep (far deeper than we have the
technology to dig even today, let alone back in 1968), complete with
"4 blast doors to keep the explosion from getting back into the area
the nukes were maintained", or your brain would have been forced to
admit it was wrong when it told you those nukes sat untouched for 33
years and maintained their viability) are supposed to survive in 960
to 1840 degree heat?

12) You admitted (MID:<ed75e9d6f7ccf7296c075fd695673a37@dizum.com>)
that all the materials used in construction of the twin towers (all
1.5 million tons of it) had been accounted for and trucked off to the
Fresh Kills landfill. How will you reconcile your admission with your
kook blather that significant percentages of the buildings "vaporized"
(your word) and "floated toward Europe" (your words)?

13) Why can't you provide proof of the nuclear explosion seismic
signatures for these 19 nukes you k'lame were detonated at the WTC
site on 11 Sep 2001?

14) Where were the vertically-directed plumes of dust and debris
kicked up from your claimed nuclear weapons being detonated deep
underground, Ko0K?

15) Explain how the 19 nukes you claimed to have existed could have
tunneled holes from the underground installation 37.28 to 96.93 miles
deep that you claimed to have existed, to directly under the WTC
complex... in 12 seconds... through solid bedrock... prior to
detonating directly below the WTC towers (which, of course, fucks up
your timing between the detonations you claim took place (for which
you used the WCBS video, claiming the satellite uplink interference
was "EMP") and the collapses, leading you back to where your delusion
started. Congratulations, Dimwit, you've made the full circuit on The
Island of Insanity. Now go 'round again.).

16) Explain why you're now saying there were 34 nukes
(MID:<345fee8b286a91037bc806ed589d182d@dizum.com>), as opposed to your
previously k'lamed 19 nukes (and your previously, previously k'lamed 3
nukes)... would it be because your broken little brain is squirming
under the scorching twin beams of truth and reality, screaming in
agony at its being forced to see just how delusional it truly is?
While you're at it, get to explaining how the regular rad sweeps
(radiological surveys) at the twin towers (because the space was
primarily rented by government agencies) showed no nukes or any
contamination whatsoever, and how 34 nukes were obtained and put in
place without drawing any attention whatsoever. Of course, this
*still* fucks up your timing between the detonations (ie: your claimed
"EMP" on the WCBS video) and the collapses, leading you back to where
your delusion started... that unresolvable logic hole rears its ugly
head again. LOL

17) Your broken brain is yet again expanding your delusion with your
"34 or more nukes" blather (you're now saying there were 65 nukes
(MID: <984122ddbf1e4e5d6f5a7b3f56eeeb6f@dizum.com>))... eventually,
your broken brain will be telling you that NYC today is a CGI and the
real city was blown up by
1,592,629,490,173,371,449,138,916,004,581,949 intelligent nano-nukes
which autonomously dug their way up from their secret underground
MoleMan base 15,682,941 miles below the surface of our hollow planet
and attached themselves to every steel part of every building in NYC
and vaporized them and they all floated down to MoleVille, and the
fact that the EMP from all those nukes detonating at once didn't burn
out every electrical generating station, electrical substation, every
piece of electronic equipment, every vehicle, every aircraft... that's
*proof* that NYC is a CGI today! LOL

18) Explain how a nuclear weapon wouldn't have nuclear detonation
byproducts with the right nuclear trigger, according to your words
"with the right detonator you could have a 'clean' nuke" (MID:
<43acc7488b179f3bfea83ef7076f92b9@dizum.com>).

19) 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, Roger Wittekind.

20) Now you're saying the Ogallala Aquifer is radioactive (what's that
got to do with the WTC?)... with absolutely no proof... all you have
is the paranoid delusional rantings of other schizophrenics like you.

Do you see how utterly ridiculous you're beginning to sound? Get back
on your meds, you delusional loon.
======================================================

There are now 20 ways your kook konspiracy theory violates the laws of
physics... now you'd better get to work addressing each one, point by
point, or people are gonna know you're just a retard who can't grasp
simple physics.

Kook. LOL

-- 

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 buildings fell, which is pretty much where we started. So I've
proven by drop-kicking your retarded ass around the perimeter of
sanity full-circle that you're insane. LOL

G) Realizing the utter ridiculousness of your kook blather above, your
broken brain has backpedaled and expanded your delusion even more as a
desperate attempt at attaining some semblance of plausibility...
saying there were 34 mini-nukes, and they were within and underneath
the twin towers. If those 34 nukes you claim existed *did* explode,
where are the nuclear detonation byproducts? The highly radioactive
metal? The radiation burns and radiation sickness of people in the
vicinity? Where are the nuclear detonation signature seismographs? Why
did the electrical grid, all electronics and all vehicles survive not
just one but *34* nuclear EMPs? And what about that timing between the
WCBS video satellite uplink interference (what you claimed was "EMP")
and the shaking and collapse of the tower? That's now off by 14 whole
seconds, just as it was when your kooky conspiracy theory began. LOL

H) 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, Mike.

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

"Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 19:05 -0500
  Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (link fixed) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 20:42 -0500
    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (link fixed) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 22:38 -0500
    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (link fixed) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 03:35 +0000
  Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 01:34 +0000
    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (9/11-the smoking gun) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-29 21:25 -0500
      Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (9/11-the smoking gun) gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-08-29 22:37 -0500
        Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the synchronization flash for gliber34 "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 15:37 -0500
          Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the synchronization flash for gliber34 jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 20:58 +0000
            Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 16:33 -0500
              Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-30 23:17 +0100
              Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 23:04 +0000
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim + VT link) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 20:35 -0500
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim + VT link) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 02:00 +0000
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (THE NO PLANES MOVIE) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 21:58 -0500
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (THE NO PLANES MOVIE) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-31 03:21 +0000
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (THE NO PLANES MOVIE) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 06:28 +0200
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the lies of Jim + VT link) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-31 09:56 +0100
          Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (the synchronization flash for gliber34 Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-30 23:17 +0100
      Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (9/11-the smoking gun) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 03:34 +0000
        Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 15:23 -0500
          Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 20:53 +0000
            Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 16:23 -0500
              Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) Tony Dragon <tony.dragon@btinternet.com> - 2015-08-30 23:17 +0100
              Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-08-30 23:01 +0000
              Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 02:37 +0200
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 20:00 -0500
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 20:18 -0700
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 22:27 -0500
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 20:36 -0700
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (Note 4 %) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 22:45 -0500
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (Note 4 %) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 20:58 -0700
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (Note 4 %) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 22:59 -0500
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (Note 4 %) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 21:14 -0700
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-08-31 04:29 -0500
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 20:42 -0500
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2015-08-30 20:18 -0700
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (NIST lies 4 Jim) Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2015-08-31 07:27 +0200
                Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed (FNN is using outright lies) "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 20:45 -0500
  Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-30 07:23 -0700
    Re: "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-08-30 11:37 -0500

csiph-web