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

Groups > alt.astronomy > #274968

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

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 04/09/2015 06:17, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 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:
>
>> "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:mq3gua9bpntjg7pvp4du6pll88n321r7nk@4ax.com...
>
>>> Learn about inertia and how it affects items like wings. Get back
>>> to me once you've done so.
>
>> 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...
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo>
> A ping-pong ball fired through a ping-pong paddle.
>
> Now, you're saying "Oh, but that's just a *plastic* paddle"...
> <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
>
> 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
>

I think Rocky is ignoring you.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

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