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

Groups > alt.astronomy > #279112

Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:n2bd21$o4a$2@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
>>news:n22l10$r92$2@pcls7.std.com...
>>> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>You are a complete idiot because you still think the nukes used on the
>>>>Twin
>>>>Towers should have left a seismic signature
>>>
>>> All nukes leave a distinctive seismic signature.  Remember?  It's part
>>> of your excellent Duck Test disproving nukes!
>
>>Not mine.
>
> Don't be so modest, Roger! It was you who came up with the excellent Duck
> Test that disproves conclusively that nukes could not have been used on
> 9/11.  You came up with the other excellent Duck Test disproving CGIs as
> well!!

But it was you who changed the rules and tried to make MRR nukes follow the 
same rules as American made nukes.


>>  But we can use when the North Tower shook as if it were a tuning
>>fork as an earthquake.
>
> Perhaps it did shake like a tuning fork as it started collapsing.  But it
> did not leave a 5.5 magnitude earthquake (2.3, yes), and it did not
> produce a distinctive nuclear detonation signature, either.  Just like you
> showed in your Duck Test!!

And I've asked you before and you failed to answer if it started to collapse 
then why did it do nothing for about 12 seconds?

And since when have you seen a collapsing building shake and then do nothing 
and then collapse from near the top down when no other buildings in the 
world have ever collapsed from near the top down?

And they didn't just collapse in a weird way but what they left on the 
ground was even weirder with one wall very high and the staircase closest to 
that wall 6 floors high and the wall furthest from the surviving wall all 
the way down to the ground.  See:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

To date only an off-center deep underground MRR nuke explains the remains of 
both the Twin Towers:
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

And given that you think over 90% of Flight 93 was recovered despite the 
fact the photographic evidence of that event proves otherwise proves you are 
a sucker for bullshit stories.


>>>> and a lot of radiation when it
>>>>turns out the radiation from those nukes had a half life of 8 days 
>>>>meaning
>>>>after a few week a Geiger counter might not detect anything extra
>>>
>>> Nope.  A whole shitload of fission products and neutron-activated
>>> radioisotopes are produce.  Some have half-lives measured in seconds,
>>> others in thousands of years.  Yes, one of the more dangerous isotopes
>>> (Iodine-131) has a half-life of 8 days, but that's just one of dozens.
>>> Any site where there was a nuke is still radioactive.  "Trinity" is 
>>> still
>>> radioactive, and that was in 1945.
>
>>But was that nuke manufactured by us or by Israel?  <G>
>
> Diversion noted.  As I pointed out, if Ground Zero had been nuked, it
> would still be radioactive.  Just like you noted in your Duck Test!!

But all you have proven so far is you were wrong about deep underground 
nukes making a flash or an EMP as proven by a video from dmaster on 
alt.conspiracy.

And I've asked you over and over and over to try and find some information 
about deep underground nukes because you seem to think they are no different 
then nukes detonated way above ground.

But now not only do I want you to post info about deep underground nukes but 
on top of that they have to be MRR nukes and not American made nukes.

>>>  It's safe enough to visit, but you are
>>> not allowed to take any of the "trinitite" (radioactive glassy melted
>>> sand) as a souvineer. So the World Trade Center site would measure as
>>> radioactive even today, had there been nukes.  The fact that it isn't is
>>> another part of your awesome Duck Test proof of no nukes.
>
>>You have already forgotten that the place where the big nukes were 
>>detonated
>>have been buried in concrete.
>
> Doesn't matter.  The whole site would still be radioactive.  It's not.

You have already forgotten about MRR nukes and that America does not make 
them so where are you getting your information from?

>>  You have even seen a photo of that on that
>>page that talks about an alleged ice age pothole that was not consistent
>>with an ice age pothole but it was consistent with a hole from a nuke that
>>was directed more at WTC2 then WTC4.
>
> Nope, a nuke would have left a crater hundreds of feet in diameter, not 40
> feet. Just like you pointed out in your Duck Test!

ROTFLMAO and that is more of your Flight 93 bullshit where none of the 
photos taken in Pranksville, PA show anywhere near 93% of Flight 93 being 
found.  <G>

>>> They regularly detect quarry blasting on seismometers.  No way to hide
>>> even a 1kT nuke.
>
>>And again, if there is a pre existing cavity there will not be any
>>noticeable seismic signature
>
> Nope.  You're just making crap up again.  What do you think happens when
> the blast wave hits the wall of the "pre existing cavity"?  It gets
> transferred to the rock!

But that isn't normal rock since it has already been compressed by a lot of 
heat and pressure so what is going to move then?  Don't forget that rock 
next to a nuclear demoltion is called Trinitite and they found that at GZ 
also.

>>>>  See, I told you there was a
>>>>way to use a nuke in Nuke York City without an obvious seismic 
>>>>signature.
>>>
>>> How?  You can't hide the radioactivity or the seismic signature.
>
>>You are wrong on both accounts and there is one thing underground nukes
>>leave behind that make it very obvious that underground nukes were used.
>
> Nope.  So far no evidence whatsoever of nukes, plenty of evidence against.
> Which you used in your Duck Test Proof!

But you used the wrong test for MRR nukes and you keep thinking of American 
made nukes and they don't make MRR nukes.  DUH

> And you still haven't shown me another example of a "Nuclear Detonation"!
> When are you going to show me so I have something to compare to your photo
> with all the kookscribbles?  Don't you have a kooksite or kookvid that
> shows another "Nuclear Detonation"?

You are clearly brainwashed calling people names when you are the one that 
changes rules on MRR nukes where all you have done is proven all you know 
about is American made nukes detonated above ground and America does not 
make MRR nukes and they don't document their underground nukes.

Rocky 

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

Thread

The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-11 16:40 -0600
  Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved je suis charly <charlie-gordon1492@no.where> - 2015-11-11 15:28 -0800
  Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-12 10:00 -0600
    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 09:41 -0600
      Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 20:46 -0600
  Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-15 17:15 -0600
    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-16 13:37 -0600
      Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-16 15:56 -0600
  Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Arc Michael <abookoflife@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-15 15:38 -0800
    Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-15 17:31 -0700
      Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2015-11-16 07:39 -0600
        Re: The great 9/11 mystery has been solved Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net> - 2015-11-16 08:26 -0700

csiph-web