info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Rocky
Aug 29, 2015, 8:06:16 PM8/29/15
to
"Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed
A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now
confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a "nuclear event,"
but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York,
radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem
cell therapy and physically devastating "chemo."
><http://presstv.com/detail/2014/04/21/359423/nuke-cancer-from-911-revealed/><And to see more evidence of radiation at Ground Zero check out: https://www.google.com/search?q=9%2F11+radiationRocky
Rocky
Aug 29, 2015, 9:43:20 PM8/29/15
to
redone because OE screws up when some links are used.
To see more evidence of radiation at Ground Zero do a google search for
"9/11 radiation"
To see more evidence of radiation at Ground Zero do a google search for
"9/11 radiation"
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 29, 2015, 9:46:08 PM8/29/15
to
In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
> "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed
>
> A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now
> confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a "nuclear event,"
> but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York,
> radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem
> cell therapy and physically devastating "chemo."
Yet more raving kook babble.
>
> "Nuke cancer" from 9/11 revealed
>
> A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now
> confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a "nuclear event,"
> but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York,
> radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem
> cell therapy and physically devastating "chemo."
There were no nukes, retard.
When a nuclear device explodes, it creates a huge and unique seismic
signature that can be detected by a seismograph anywhere on the planet.
There were no nuclear seismic signatures detected on 9/11 by any
seismograph anywhere in the world but the collapse of the two towers
as well as the crashes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were detected
by nearby seismographs as the slight disturbances (less than 2 on the
Richter scale) that rational people would expect from such events.
A 1 kiloton explosion registers at about 4 on the Richter scale, a
fact that is widely known and trivial to verify.
Seismographs are trivial to make and since the invention of the PC it
has been trivial to record, store and analyze seismic data.
Real time seismic data from around the world is publicly available
on the Internet from many government, academic, and private sources.
Such data is not controlled by anyone; not the media and not any
governmental agency.
This alone is enough to disprove any nuclear devices were used on 9/11.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/military/how-to-find-a-nuclear-explosion-in-north-korea
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html
Be sure to follow all the links in the above links.
<snip remaining kook babble>
--
Jim Pennino
Rocky
Aug 29, 2015, 10:26:16 PM8/29/15
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:s63abc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>
> There were no nukes, retard.
ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
> There were no nukes, retard.
explain why the lowest 6-8 floors of both the Twin Towers were not crushed
by the upper 100 floors. See:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
BTW Ground Zero should have really been called Ground Zero, Ground Zero and
Ground Zero to indicate 3 deep underground nukes were used at the World
Trade Center. <G>
-----------------------------------------
"The thirteenth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United
States fall later this year, surprisingly we still have many unanswered
questions"
...
The use of micro-nukes in the WTC complex on 9/11-the smoking gun
It's safe to say that high energy releases have a distinct look.
Dr. Ed Ward has documented what he believes is the use of micro-nukes on the
World Trade Center complex attack that took place in September of 2001.
One of the smoking guns in this case is that over 5.3 billion pounds of
steel was instantly turned into 2 billion pounds of dust, but that's not
all.
Massive steel beams were bent like pretzels as the towers collapsed.
One video shows the penthouse on building 7 being demolished on the roof
just before the building comes down. This proves that a top-down demolition
process was being utilized, otherwise the buildings might have just twisted,
naturally falling over themselves. But perhaps the most startling revelation
is the fact that vehicles looked incinerated up to one mile away from the
towers. Cars were even flipped over as if they came out of a war zone.
The fact that many of the first responders are now dead if not very sick
does not sound like the byproduct of a falling building but more like they
got a massive dose of deadly radiation. Most of the responders have died of
blood cancer, yet another sign of radiation exposure.
Cars not hit by falling debris yet totally destroyed far away from the
towers
Molten metal was seen in and around the debris of the WTC for months.
There is also the fact that the debris field was substantially low for the
magnitude of buildings that were destroyed, thus signifying that most of the
debris was incinerated upon the demo blast.
Massive craters under the WTC complex were formed, likely from the
detonation of micro-nukes, as the rock was even melted smooth. Later after
the site was fairly cleaned up and the craters were excavated, the city of
New York continued to wash down the cavities with hoses daily for years as
traces of Tritium were found, signifying the use of nuclear weaponry.
Evidence shows that levels of Tritium were 55 times higher than normal in
the WTC debris. Tritium is a by-product of a nuclear blast.
The fact that the WTC buildings were pulverized into a fine dust, 20 microns
in size or less, cannot be ignored. This is a tell-tale sign of a high
energy release typical of a nuclear explosion. Eyewitness accounts and
personal testimony indicate that people were thrown an entire city block
from what was described as a warm wind just as the towers begin to collapse.
There were also multiple reports of "hanging skin" or "melted skin" on
victims around ground zero. This was a common occurrence in the Hiroshima
blast.
Major hot spots were reported in and around the debris for up to six months
after 9/11.
This is commonly referred to as "China Syndrome", where nuclear material
will continue to undergo fission for a period of time, generating massive
heat plumes.
To no surprise, videos obtained via Freedom of Information ACT (FOIA)
requests show that sections of the video and audio have been removed,
especially during the beginning of the collapse of the towers. Why would the
government need to remove these sections of the video and
https://www.intellihub.com/use-micro-nukes-takedown-wtc-complex-911-different-eyes/
gilber34
Aug 29, 2015, 11:37:32 PM8/29/15
to
On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:s63abc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>
>> There were no nukes, retard.
>
> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
No Radiation, numbnuts.
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:s63abc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>
>> There were no nukes, retard.
>
> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
gilber34
Aug 29, 2015, 11:38:59 PM8/29/15
to
On 8/29/2015 8:42 PM, Rocky wrote:
> redone because OE screws up when some links are used.
>
> To see more evidence of radiation at Ground Zero do a google search for
>
> http://www.HugeManBoobs.com/andfat/Rocky/2014/04/21/359423/
> redone because OE screws up when some links are used.
>
> To see more evidence of radiation at Ground Zero do a google search for
>
>
>
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 30, 2015, 12:01:09 AM8/30/15
to
> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
> explain why the lowest 6-8 floors of both the Twin Towers were not crushed
> by the upper 100 floors. See:
Read the NIST report and find out, you babbling kook.
> explain why the lowest 6-8 floors of both the Twin Towers were not crushed
> by the upper 100 floors. See:
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 30, 2015, 12:01:11 AM8/30/15
to
> A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now
> confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a "nuclear event,"
> but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York,
> radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem
> cell therapy and physically devastating "chemo."
There were no nukes, you raving, delusional, batshit crazy, nut job.
> confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a "nuclear event,"
> but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York,
> radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem
> cell therapy and physically devastating "chemo."
Shoe-Chucker 2
Aug 30, 2015, 10:23:47 AM8/30/15
to
In article <8pqdnTgWlI9u1X_I...@giganews.com>,
and;
Posted on March 12, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
9/11 Commissioners Admit They Never Got the Full Story
The 9/11 Commissioners publicly expressed anger at cover ups and
obstructions of justice by the government into a real 9/11 investigation:
? 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says Å‚I donÄ…t believe for a
minute we got everything rightË›, that the Commission was set up to fail,
that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11
debate should continue
? The 9/11 Commission chair said the Commission was Å‚set up to failË›
?
more of this art. ?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/911-commissioners-didnt-believe-go
vernment.html
--
Karma ; what a concept!
Posted on March 12, 2015 by WashingtonsBlog
9/11 Commissioners Admit They Never Got the Full Story
The 9/11 Commissioners publicly expressed anger at cover ups and
obstructions of justice by the government into a real 9/11 investigation:
? 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says Å‚I donÄ…t believe for a
minute we got everything rightË›, that the Commission was set up to fail,
that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11
debate should continue
? The 9/11 Commission chair said the Commission was Å‚set up to failË›
?
more of this art. ?
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/911-commissioners-didnt-believe-go
vernment.html
--
Karma ; what a concept!
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 12:38:20 PM8/30/15
to
"Shoe-Chucker 2" <georg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:georgewk10-0206C...@news.toast.net...
one that one in complete control of what went in the report and what was
left out.
Rocky
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 4:21:46 PM8/30/15
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:c7aabc-...@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>> explain why the lowest 6-8 floors of both the Twin Towers were not
>> crushed
>> by the upper 100 floors. See:
>
> Read the NIST report and find out, you babbling kook.
FYI I downloaded all the NIST reports before they broke them into pieces and
>
>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>> explain why the lowest 6-8 floors of both the Twin Towers were not
>> crushed
>> by the upper 100 floors. See:
>
> Read the NIST report and find out, you babbling kook.
made the hard to make heads or tails out of them.
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.
><https://www.youtube.com/results?filters=playlist&search_query=collapse+initiation&lclk=playlist><
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
But the photo above considers where underground nukes would have to be
placed to leave the walls standing from the Twin Towers standing strong.
<G>
Where WTC7 is concerned NIST tried to hide the fact that WTC7 fell at 100%
free fall for the first 100+ feet by using averages. And nobody cares about
what happened to WTC7 after those first 100 feet because it is the first 100
feet is consistent with a "Controlled Demolition." DUH.
Rocky
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 4:36:01 PM8/30/15
to
"gilber34" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:mrttpm$g7i$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
But now there are plenty of places where radiation from ground zero has to
be tied to the problems people are having now or died from.
And back to the "synchronization flash" used by the people placing CGI into
videos by the dozens.
Here's a good 3 min 9/11 Clip worth seeing!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhROd7Jt3-w
But keep in mind only the flash is real and it was used to synchronize the
CGIs to the real world.
Rocky
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 30, 2015, 5:01:11 PM8/30/15
to
In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@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.
OK, so you downloaded them.
> 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.
Did you read and understand them?
> 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.
> 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
> But the photo above considers where underground nukes would have to be
> placed to leave the walls standing from the Twin Towers standing strong.
> Where WTC7 is concerned NIST tried to hide the fact that WTC7 fell at 100%
> free fall for the first 100+ feet by using averages. And nobody cares about
> what happened to WTC7 after those first 100 feet because it is the first 100
> feet is consistent with a "Controlled Demolition." DUH.
whatever data is available.
How it fell for the first 100 feet is consistant with a LOT of other
things.
So you downloaded the NIST reports but didn't read them, or at least
not for comprehension, because one guy who could be mistaken or
just a kook made a youtube video NIST lied, some of the buildings
were left standing and that is a mystery to you, that the fall of
WTC7 was not instrumented so an exact velocity is impossible to
determine, from this you come to the conclusion that:
Nuclear devices numbering somewhere from 3 to 34 were involved in
spite of the facts that there was no unsusual radiation, there were
not somewhere from 3 to 34 EMP's, and there were not somewhere from
3 to 34 magnitude 6 seismic events,
You also conclude that USGS controls every seismograph on the
planet and seismic readings clearly labled as NOT being from
the USGS are from the USGS.
You also conclude that since nuclear devices require periodic
maintenance that there must have been a maintenace facility
at the bottom of the towers with the equipment, materials and
skilled personnel equivalent to the original manufacturer and
all of this was kept secret in one of the world's busies places
for over 3 decades.
Seek the help of a mental health professional and you may be
able to get a job you can keep for long enough to get a retirement.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 30, 2015, 5:01:21 PM8/30/15
to
> "gilber34" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:mrttpm$g7i$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:s63abc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>
>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>
>> No Radiation
>
> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
No unusual radiation reported by anyone, kook.
> news:mrttpm$g7i$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:s63abc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>
>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>
>> No Radiation
>
> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
than normal, and it is not, kook.
--
Jim Pennino
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 5:21:57 PM8/30/15
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:m37cbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@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.
>
> 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
>
>> 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.
>
> OK, so you downloaded them.
>
> Did you read and understand them?
hypotheses where their test were not real world test but test run on
cartoons. <G>
>> 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.
>> 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.
Twin Towers but it happened to both of them. See for yourself:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>> 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.
Towers stood strong but people that know about NCDs do. <G>
>> Where WTC7 is concerned NIST tried to hide the fact that WTC7 fell at
>> 100%
>> free fall for the first 100+ feet by using averages. And nobody cares
>> about
>> what happened to WTC7 after those first 100 feet because it is the first
>> 100
>> feet is consistent with a "Controlled Demolition." DUH.
>
> As the fall wasn't instrumented, all anyone can do is us averages of
> whatever data is available.
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
> How it fell for the first 100 feet is consistant with a LOT of other
> things.
> So you downloaded the NIST reports but didn't read them
and cartoons and nothing of any substance. <G>
Since all you did was pile on your bullshit deeper and deeper I had to flush
the rest of your post. DUH
Rocky
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 5:31:48 PM8/30/15
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:bc7cbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
radioactivity.
And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where it
takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
Still the preponderance of the evidence proves that underground nukes left
the corners of the Twin Towers standing strong and made liars out of NIST,
NORAD, FAA, EPA, NNSA and above all the USGS. <G>
Rocky
Tony Dragon
Aug 30, 2015, 6:17:38 PM8/30/15
to
On 30/08/2015 22:33, Rocky wrote:
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:bc7cbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "gilber34" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mrttpm$g7i$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:s63abc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>>>
>>>> No Radiation
>>>
>>> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
>>
>> No unusual radiation reported by anyone, kook.
>>
>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>
> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak up
> radioactivity.
>
> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where it
> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
>
What radiation would that be?
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:bc7cbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "gilber34" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mrttpm$g7i$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:s63abc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>>>
>>>> No Radiation
>>>
>>> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
>>
>> No unusual radiation reported by anyone, kook.
>>
>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>
> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak up
> radioactivity.
>
> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where it
> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
>
What type of Geiger counter would that be?
> Still the preponderance of the evidence proves that underground nukes left
> the corners of the Twin Towers standing strong and made liars out of NIST,
> NORAD, FAA, EPA, NNSA and above all the USGS. <G>
>
> Rocky
>
>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
Tony Dragon
Aug 30, 2015, 6:17:41 PM8/30/15
to
On 30/08/2015 21:37, Rocky wrote:
> "gilber34" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:mrttpm$g7i$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:s63abc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>
>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>
>> No Radiation
>
> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
>
So where did you get your reports of radiation?
> "gilber34" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:mrttpm$g7i$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>> news:s63abc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>
>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>
>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>
>> No Radiation
>
> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
>
What sort of radiation was it?
Who recorded it?
What was it recorded with?
> But now there are plenty of places where radiation from ground zero has to
> be tied to the problems people are having now or died from.
>
> And back to the "synchronization flash" used by the people placing CGI into
> videos by the dozens.
>
> Here's a good 3 min 9/11 Clip worth seeing!
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhROd7Jt3-w
>
> But keep in mind only the flash is real and it was used to synchronize the
> CGIs to the real world.
>
> Rocky
>
>
Tony Dragon
Aug 30, 2015, 6:17:50 PM8/30/15
to
>
>>> Where WTC7 is concerned NIST tried to hide the fact that WTC7 fell at
>>> 100%
>>> free fall for the first 100+ feet by using averages. And nobody cares
>>> about
>>> what happened to WTC7 after those first 100 feet because it is the first
>>> 100
>>> feet is consistent with a "Controlled Demolition." DUH.
>>
>> 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
>
>> How it fell for the first 100 feet is consistant with a LOT of other
>> things.
>
> And your outright lie is based on what website? If there is one. <G>
>
>> So you downloaded the NIST reports but didn't read them
>
> It is you who has not read them or you would know they only have hypothesis
> and cartoons and nothing of any substance. <G>
>
> Since all you did was pile on your bullshit deeper and deeper I had to flush
> the rest of your post. DUH
>
> Rocky sheeple
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 30, 2015, 7:16:06 PM8/30/15
to
In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:m37cbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@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.
>>
>> 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>
That is babbling gibberish; did you read and understand them?
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:m37cbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@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.
>>
>> 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>
>>> 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.
>
> But it was not one guy there was input from quite a few people. DUH.
but there were also thousands of people with the same story.
>>> 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. See for yourself:
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
the buildings were almost identical as was what happened to them?
>>> 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.
>
> 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>
>>> Where WTC7 is concerned NIST tried to hide the fact that WTC7 fell at
>>> 100%
>>> free fall for the first 100+ feet by using averages. And nobody cares
>>> about
>>> what happened to WTC7 after those first 100 feet because it is the first
>>> 100
>>> feet is consistent with a "Controlled Demolition." DUH.
>>
>> 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
>
>> How it fell for the first 100 feet is consistant with a LOT of other
>> things.
>
> And your outright lie is based on what website? If there is one. <G>
What an utter fool you are.
>> So you downloaded the NIST reports but didn't read them
>
> It is you who has not read them or you would know they only have hypothesis
> and cartoons and nothing of any substance. <G>
because of the big words.
> Since all you did was pile on your bullshit deeper and deeper I had to flush
> the rest of your post. DUH
world as you are looking for conspiracies that don't exist, not
understanding how much of anything works, and being incapable of
learning anything.
If you seek professional help, you might be able to hold a job.
--
Jim Pennino
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 30, 2015, 7:16:07 PM8/30/15
to
In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:bc7cbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "gilber34" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mrttpm$g7i$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:s63abc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>>>
>>>> No Radiation
>>>
>>> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
>>
>> No unusual radiation reported by anyone, kook.
>>
>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>
> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak up
> radioactivity.
You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:bc7cbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "gilber34" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:mrttpm$g7i$3...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 8/29/2015 9:25 PM, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:s63abc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were no nukes, retard.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLMAO because if nukes were not used to level the Twin Towers then
>>>>
>>>> No Radiation
>>>
>>> keep going because it was "no radiation reported by the media" asshole.
>>
>> No unusual radiation reported by anyone, kook.
>>
>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>
> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak up
> radioactivity.
> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where it
> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
> Still the preponderance of the evidence proves that underground nukes left
> the corners of the Twin Towers standing strong and made liars out of NIST,
> NORAD, FAA, EPA, NNSA and above all the USGS. <G>
If you seek professional help, you may be able to hold a job.
--
Jim Pennino
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Aug 30, 2015, 8:40:07 PM8/30/15
to
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:OYqdnZJua7ds7n7I...@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:
>> In sci.physics Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking
>> failed truck driver and deadly menace behind the wheel)
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: <2d28aff133d1feb4...@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: <e62c14c89ab831a6...@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:<ed75e9d6f7ccf729...@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:<345fee8b286a9103...@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: <984122ddbf1e4e5d...@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:
<43acc7488b179f3b...@dizum.com>).
19) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3d...@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:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3d...@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
Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking failed truck driver and
deadly menace behind the wheel), in
<news:OYqdnZJua7ds7n7I...@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:
>> In sci.physics Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking
>> failed truck driver and deadly menace behind the wheel)
>> <woo...@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
>>> 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.
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>
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.
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
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: <2d28aff133d1feb4...@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.
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>
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
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
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
labels reality a lie is noted, Roger Wittekind. LOL
> is based on what website? If there is one. <G>
Moron. LOL
>> So you downloaded the NIST reports but didn't read them
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: <e62c14c89ab831a6...@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:<ed75e9d6f7ccf729...@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:<345fee8b286a9103...@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: <984122ddbf1e4e5d...@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:
<43acc7488b179f3b...@dizum.com>).
19) Now you're saying the OKC bombing was nuclear in nature (MID:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3d...@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:
<e3f0e4f638e69c3d...@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
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 9:00:50 PM8/30/15
to
"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
wrote in message news:a10f31364930072a...@dizum.com...
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking
You asshole. I won that jury trial12 to 0 without an attorney and I would
>
> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking
have won the malicious prosecution lawsuit too if I had been allowed to use
the Probable Cause itself that had previously been used in the jury trial I
won to prove both malice and a total lack of good faith.
Too bad the bullshit you used above has prevented me from considering any of
the bullshit you posted below.
Rocky
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 9:36:17 PM8/30/15
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:8oecbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
...
>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>
>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak
>> up
>> radioactivity.
>
> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.
>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>
>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak
>> up
>> radioactivity.
>
> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why
both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the
location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.
>> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where
>> it
>> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
>
> That is jus babbling nonsense.
radiation from Hanford.
>> Still the preponderance of the evidence proves that underground nukes
>> left
>> the corners of the Twin Towers standing strong and made liars out of
>> NIST,
>> NORAD, FAA, EPA, NNSA and above all the USGS. <G>
>
> That is just delusional paranoia.
can fall down and then leave large parts of the lower floors intact like the
outside walls or Stairwell B in the North Tower where over a dozen people
survived. See:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
Or see:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/28/nuclear-911-revealed-theories-and-disinformation-the-misguided-and-the-inhuman/
Rocky
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 9:43:00 PM8/30/15
to
"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
wrote in message news:a10f31364930072a...@dizum.com...
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking
>
> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 9:46:17 PM8/30/15
to
"Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
wrote in message news:a10f31364930072a...@dizum.com...
> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking
You asshole. I won that jury trial 12 to 0 without an attorney and I would
>
> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the woman-stalking
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 30, 2015, 10:01:07 PM8/30/15
to
In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:8oecbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>>
>>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak
>>> up
>>> radioactivity.
>>
>> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
>
> Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.
>
> Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why
> both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the
> location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.
You are attempting to change the subject.
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:8oecbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>>
>>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak
>>> up
>>> radioactivity.
>>
>> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
>
> Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.
>
> Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why
> both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the
> location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.
If nukes were used, the background radiation in the whole area would
STILL be higher than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where
>>> it
>>> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
>>
>> That is jus babbling nonsense.
>
> Then you explain why the radiation from Fukishima is different than the
> radiation from Hanford.
Fukishima and Hanford have nothing to do with 9/11, kook.
>>> it
>>> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
>>
>> That is jus babbling nonsense.
>
> Then you explain why the radiation from Fukishima is different than the
> radiation from Hanford.
There is no magic radiation that takes a "special Geiger counter" to
detect, kook.
If you seek help you may be able to hold a job.
--
Jim Pennino
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 10:59:12 PM8/30/15
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:73pcbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:8oecbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>>>
>>>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to
>>>> soak
>>>> up
>>>> radioactivity.
>>>
>>> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
>>
>> Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.
>>
>> Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why
>> both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the
>> location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.
>
> You are attempting to change the subject.
>
> If nukes were used, the background radiation in the whole area would
> STILL be higher than normal, and it is not, kook.
You are thinking of dirty nukes and not clean nukes. And who says all nukes
>>
>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> news:8oecbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>>>
>>>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to
>>>> soak
>>>> up
>>>> radioactivity.
>>>
>>> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
>>
>> Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.
>>
>> Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why
>> both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the
>> location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.
>
> You are attempting to change the subject.
>
> If nukes were used, the background radiation in the whole area would
> STILL be higher than normal, and it is not, kook.
have to be dirty? Is it the same people that nuked the Twin Towers?
If you don't like me talking about the nukes that leveled the Twin Towers
with the exception of the walls that were left standing strong I wonder how
you will feel about the following video that was prepared by the only person
that could recreate the disappearing wing of the alleged Flight 175.:
----------------------------------
Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
Published on Mar 22, 2014
Completed 3/22/2014
by James Easton and Steve Grage
THE EPITOME OF NO PLANES FILMS on the subject.
Are you a No Brainer? Then you probably believe there were PLANES on 9/11.
Well... THERE WEREN'T!
Produced by James Easton of WAKEUP PRODUCTIONS, creator of 9/11 The BIGGEST
LIE which has 700,000 views on Youtube.
Steve Grage is a credentialed ENGINEER with 25 years experience.
This is no joke. Word is spreading. Pretty soon you too will be saying THERE
WERE NO FUCKIN PLANES ON 9/11 PERIOD!
James Easton - September 20, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
THERE WERE NO FCUKIN PLANES ON 9/11 PERIOD!
Rocky
%
Aug 30, 2015, 11:13:48 PM8/30/15
to
%
Aug 30, 2015, 11:14:12 PM8/30/15
to
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 11:27:47 PM8/30/15
to
"%" <per...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8nt6ac....@news.alt.net...
Rocky
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Aug 30, 2015, 11:31:10 PM8/30/15
to
<snip remaining delusional raving>
If you get help you may be able to hold a job, nutcase.
--
Jim Pennino
%
Aug 30, 2015, 11:32:00 PM8/30/15
to
Rocky
Aug 30, 2015, 11:46:07 PM8/30/15
to
news:8nt7cg....@news.alt.net...
Yes, it was nuked and right before I pressed the post button. But there was
no conspiracy because I still have no idea who forced the US to use a built
in nuclear demolition scheme to wipe the Twin Towers off the map.
===========================
Hey, I'm watching the following video and it is way way way better than I
thought it would be. At least so far because I'm only at 23:36.
Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
Rocky
no conspiracy because I still have no idea who forced the US to use a built
in nuclear demolition scheme to wipe the Twin Towers off the map.
===========================
Hey, I'm watching the following video and it is way way way better than I
thought it would be. At least so far because I'm only at 23:36.
Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
Rocky
%
Aug 30, 2015, 11:53:23 PM8/30/15
to
Rocky
Aug 31, 2015, 12:00:22 AM8/31/15
to
news:8nt8ki....@news.alt.net...
It is Nuke York and they earned that name with all the nukes that have been
detonated there.
BTW THERE WERE NO FCUKIN PLANES ON 9/11 PERIOD!
Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
detonated there.
BTW THERE WERE NO FCUKIN PLANES ON 9/11 PERIOD!
Steve Grage & James Easton's PHYSICS 9/11 - THE NO PLANES MOVIE
Published on Mar 22, 2014
Completed 3/22/2014
by James Easton and Steve Grage
THE EPITOME OF NO PLANES FILMS on the subject.
Are you a No Brainer? Then you probably believe there were PLANES on 9/11.
Well... THERE WEREN'T!
Produced by James Easton of WAKEUP PRODUCTIONS, creator of 9/11 The BIGGEST
LIE which has 700,000 views on Youtube.
Steve Grage is a credentialed ENGINEER with 25 years experience.
This is no joke. Word is spreading. Pretty soon you too will be saying THERE
WERE NO FUCKIN PLANES ON 9/11 PERIOD!
James Easton - September 20, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
Rocky
Completed 3/22/2014
by James Easton and Steve Grage
THE EPITOME OF NO PLANES FILMS on the subject.
Are you a No Brainer? Then you probably believe there were PLANES on 9/11.
Well... THERE WEREN'T!
Produced by James Easton of WAKEUP PRODUCTIONS, creator of 9/11 The BIGGEST
LIE which has 700,000 views on Youtube.
Steve Grage is a credentialed ENGINEER with 25 years experience.
This is no joke. Word is spreading. Pretty soon you too will be saying THERE
WERE NO FUCKIN PLANES ON 9/11 PERIOD!
James Easton - September 20, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1D1C94eE8U
%
Aug 31, 2015, 12:09:31 AM8/31/15
to
we're talking about the nothing below your post
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Aug 31, 2015, 12:31:13 AM8/31/15
to
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:d4WdnZqfsqhgX37I...@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:
> You are thinking of dirty nukes and not clean nu<SMACKAKOOK!>
BWAAHHHAHAHAHAA! "clean nukes"
You fucking retard.
PO Box 471
167 40th Avenue
East Moline, IL 61244
309-755-6374
309-755-6394
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
Aug 31, 2015, 1:30:05 AM8/31/15
to
Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the paranoid-delusional schizophrenic
woman-stalking failed truck driver, in
<news:b8SdnbegiYy8LH7I...@giganews.com> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:
> "Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus" <FN...@altusenetkooks.xxx>
> wrote in message news:a10f31364930072a...@dizum.com...
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> Rocky (aka Roger Wittekind the paranoid-delusional
> wrote in message news:a10f31364930072a...@dizum.com...
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> schizophrenic woman-stalking failed truck driver) snipped
>> out all the evidence that he has a broken brain and is
>> in dire need of psychological medication:
> You asshole. I won that jury trial12 to 0 without an attorney and I would
> have won the malicious prosecution lawsuit too if I had been allowed to use
> the Probable Cause itself that had previously been used in the jury trial I
> won to prove both malice and a total lack of good faith.
woman because she wanted to protect her daughter against your nearly
20 years of stalking. You got sanctioned and fined $1500. LOL
And Cheryl *still* wants nothing to do with you. You lost, all around,
Roger Wittekind. You lost your mind, you lost money, you lost the
girl, you proved you're an obsesso stalker and now you're proving you
are suffering mightily from schizophrenic paranoid delusions.
<snicker>
> Too bad the bullshit you used above has prevented me from considering any of
> the bullshit you posted below.
ropes... meanwhile, I'll keep landing those hammer blows upside your
retarded skull. You're defenseless against me because you're
defenseless against reality... and even you, in the depths of your
insanity, know that.
Moron. LOL
Tony Dragon
Aug 31, 2015, 4:56:22 AM8/31/15
to
On 31/08/2015 02:35, Rocky wrote:
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:8oecbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>>
>>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak
>>> up
>>> radioactivity.
>>
>> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
>
> Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.
>
> Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why
> both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the
> location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.
>
>
>>> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where
>>> it
>>> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
>>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:8oecbc-...@mail.specsol.com...
>> In sci.physics Rocky <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>>> If nukes were used, the background radiation would STILL be higher
>>>> than normal, and it is not, kook.
>>>
>>> And yet you have never considered the places that used M291 resin to soak
>>> up
>>> radioactivity.
>>
>> You can not soak radioactivity out of something.
>
> Ok, so it was used to stop radiation from spreading.
>
> Still you don't consider the places where M291 resin was deployed or why
> both Chernobyl and the alleged "Ice Age Pothole" that was really the
> location of a nuclear detonation were both covered/filled with concrete.
>
>
>>> And what if the radiation left behind is like Fukishima's radiation where
>>> it
>>> takes a special Geiger counter to detect it?
>>
What radiation would that be?
What type of Geiger counter would that be?
What type of Geiger counter would that be?
>> That is jus babbling nonsense.
>
> Then you explain why the radiation from Fukishima is different than the
> radiation from Hanford.
>
>
>>> Still the preponderance of the evidence proves that underground nukes
>>> left
>>> the corners of the Twin Towers standing strong and made liars out of
>>> NIST,
>>> NORAD, FAA, EPA, NNSA and above all the USGS. <G>
>>
>> That is just delusional paranoia.
>
> And yet you or NIST have been unable to explain how two 110 story buildings
> can fall down and then leave large parts of the lower floors intact like the
> outside walls or Stairwell B in the North Tower where over a dozen people
> survived. See:
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> Or see:
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/28/nuclear-911-revealed-theories-and-disinformation-the-misguided-and-the-inhuman/
>
>
> Rocky
>
>
>
> Then you explain why the radiation from Fukishima is different than the
> radiation from Hanford.
>
>
>>> Still the preponderance of the evidence proves that underground nukes
>>> left
>>> the corners of the Twin Towers standing strong and made liars out of
>>> NIST,
>>> NORAD, FAA, EPA, NNSA and above all the USGS. <G>
>>
>> That is just delusional paranoia.
>
> And yet you or NIST have been unable to explain how two 110 story buildings
> can fall down and then leave large parts of the lower floors intact like the
> outside walls or Stairwell B in the North Tower where over a dozen people
> survived. See:
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg
>
> Or see:
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/28/nuclear-911-revealed-theories-and-disinformation-the-misguided-and-the-inhuman/
>
>
> Rocky
>
>
noTthaTguY
Aug 31, 2015, 5:28:16 PM8/31/15
to
most of the folk of Chernobyl,
wish to go back home, because
they probably know the word, hormesis
wish to go back home, because
they probably know the word, hormesis
0 new messages