Spot the disinformation at: The Dimitri Khalezov "WTC was nuked" hoax

[Rocky]

I got a great big kick out of the following URL because he states: "more
than 1,400 architectural and engineering professionals have called for a
new, truly independent investigation":
><http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm><

And yet the person that posted the above never considers the testimony of
just one expert on nuclear explosives? Too funny.

The real shills are and they are the ones that can't see the abundant
evidence that mini nukes were planted 50 meters deep in the granite at
Ground Zero and still left a mushroom shaped smoke cloud over the North
Tower that expanded against the wind.
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s

And if ae911truth could get their act together they would notice that the
debris field from the North and South Tower do not support a Controlled
Demolition but mini nukes instead. And the fact the building just north of
WTC7 was also damaged also supports the use of mini nukes on WTC 7.

Dimitri Khalezov 911 video - the most prohibited item on the web
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_UsC6GvKf0

Rocky

[Brad Guth]

Apparently those 1400 professionals are all kinda worthless individuals that
simply don't know anything about structural forensics nor physics, and
obviously couldn't follow the money if their own life depended upon it.

You have to admit that the indiscriminate killing of near 3000 civilians and
such collateral infrastructure damage was a pretty impressive way of
covering 5+ trillion dollars worth of butts. Obviously the bigger they can
make the national debt, the more insignificant those unaccounted 5+ trillion
dollars become, and our uneducated future K-12s will be none the wiser.


"Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote in message
news:LpidnaUvx-ZnWSnP...@giganews.com...

[BDK]

In article <l943u9$u71$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, brad...@gmail.com says...

>
> Apparently those 1400 professionals are all kinda worthless individuals that
> simply don't know anything about structural forensics nor physics, and
> obviously couldn't follow the money if their own life depended upon it.
>
> You have to admit that the indiscriminate killing of near 3000 civilians and
> such collateral infrastructure damage was a pretty impressive way of
> covering 5+ trillion dollars worth of butts. Obviously the bigger they can
> make the national debt, the more insignificant those unaccounted 5+ trillion
> dollars become, and our uneducated future K-12s will be none the wiser.

Guthball! You're back! And as insane as ever.

>
>
> "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:LpidnaUvx-ZnWSnP...@giganews.com...
> >I got a great big kick out of the following URL because he states: "more
> >than 1,400 architectural and engineering professionals have called for a
> >new, truly independent investigation":
> >><http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm><
> >
> > And yet the person that posted the above never considers the testimony of
> > just one expert on nuclear explosives? Too funny.
> >
> > The real shills are and they are the ones that can't see the abundant
> > evidence that mini nukes were planted 50 meters deep in the granite at
> > Ground Zero and still left a mushroom shaped smoke cloud over the North
> > Tower that expanded against the wind.
> > http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s
> >
> > And if ae911truth could get their act together they would notice that the
> > debris field from the North and South Tower do not support a Controlled
> > Demolition but mini nukes instead. And the fact the building just north
> > of WTC7 was also damaged also supports the use of mini nukes on WTC 7.
> >
> > Dimitri Khalezov 911 video - the most prohibited item on the web
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_UsC6GvKf0
> >
> > Rocky
> >

--
BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster. Friend to all kOOkbashers.

[Rocky]

"BDK" <Con...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2d1f7887e...@news.giganews.com...

> In article <l943u9$u71$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, brad...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Apparently those 1400 professionals are all kinda worthless individuals
>> that
>> simply don't know anything about structural forensics nor physics, and
>> obviously couldn't follow the money if their own life depended upon it.
>>
>> You have to admit that the indiscriminate killing of near 3000 civilians
>> and
>> such collateral infrastructure damage was a pretty impressive way of
>> covering 5+ trillion dollars worth of butts. Obviously the bigger they
>> can
>> make the national debt, the more insignificant those unaccounted 5+
>> trillion
>> dollars become, and our uneducated future K-12s will be none the wiser.
>
>

< snip off topic bs >

And BKD your explanation for the two surviving corners of the Twin Towers
that were not covered by debris was what?

It is still hilarious that just one expert in nuclear explosives could
explain a lot more than 1,400 architectural and engineering professionals.
<G>

>> "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:LpidnaUvx-ZnWSnP...@giganews.com...
>> >I got a great big kick out of the following URL because he states: "more
>> >than 1,400 architectural and engineering professionals have called for a
>> >new, truly independent investigation":
>> >><http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm><
>> >
>> > And yet the person that posted the above never considers the testimony
>> > of
>> > just one expert on nuclear explosives? Too funny.
>> >

>> > The real shills are the ones that can't see the abundant

[Freedom Man]

"Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote in message
news:LpidnaUvx-ZnWSnP...@giganews.com...

>I got a great big kick out of the following URL because he states: "more
>than 1,400 architectural and engineering professionals have called for a
>new, truly independent investigation":
>><http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm><
>
> And yet the person that posted the above never considers the testimony of
> just one expert on nuclear explosives? Too funny.
>
> The real shills are and they are the ones that can't see the abundant
> evidence that mini nukes were planted 50 meters deep in the granite at
> Ground Zero and still left a mushroom shaped smoke cloud over the North
> Tower that expanded against the wind.

MORON Rocky:
The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings had NONE of the characteristics of a
nuclear detonation, even a small one.
Professionally installed demolition explosives were all that were necessary.

Now go find yourself a good shrink, and stop trying to make all those
exposing the TRUTH about 9/11 look like the kind of obsessed LOON that you
are!

[BDK]

In article <mqednWIbUcJtLijP...@giganews.com>,
woo...@att.net says...

>
> "BDK" <Con...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2d1f7887e...@news.giganews.com...
> > In article <l943u9$u71$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, brad...@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> Apparently those 1400 professionals are all kinda worthless individuals
> >> that
> >> simply don't know anything about structural forensics nor physics, and
> >> obviously couldn't follow the money if their own life depended upon it.
> >>
> >> You have to admit that the indiscriminate killing of near 3000 civilians
> >> and
> >> such collateral infrastructure damage was a pretty impressive way of
> >> covering 5+ trillion dollars worth of butts. Obviously the bigger they
> >> can
> >> make the national debt, the more insignificant those unaccounted 5+
> >> trillion
> >> dollars become, and our uneducated future K-12s will be none the wiser.
> >
> >
> < snip off topic bs >
>
> And BKD your explanation for the two surviving corners of the Twin Towers
> that were not covered by debris was what?

What you talkin' bout, troll boy?

>
> It is still hilarious that just one expert in nuclear explosives could
> explain a lot more than 1,400 architectural and engineering professionals.
> <G>

Stupid. You need new writers.

>
>
> >> "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote in message
> >> news:LpidnaUvx-ZnWSnP...@giganews.com...
> >> >I got a great big kick out of the following URL because he states: "more
> >> >than 1,400 architectural and engineering professionals have called for a
> >> >new, truly independent investigation":
> >> >><http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm><
> >> >
> >> > And yet the person that posted the above never considers the testimony
> >> > of
> >> > just one expert on nuclear explosives? Too funny.
> >> >
> >> > The real shills are the ones that can't see the abundant
> >> > evidence that mini nukes were planted 50 meters deep in the granite at
> >> > Ground Zero and still left a mushroom shaped smoke cloud over the North
> >> > Tower that expanded against the wind.
> >> > http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s
> >> >
> >> > And if ae911truth could get their act together they would notice that
> >> > the
> >> > debris field from the North and South Tower do not support a Controlled
> >> > Demolition but mini nukes instead. And the fact the building just
> >> > north
> >> > of WTC7 was also damaged also supports the use of mini nukes on WTC 7.
> >> >
> >> > Dimitri Khalezov 911 video - the most prohibited item on the web
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_UsC6GvKf0
>
> Rocky

[Rocky]

"Freedom Man" <frees...@4eva.com> wrote in message
news:l94kp7$s5e$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:LpidnaUvx-ZnWSnP...@giganews.com...
>>I got a great big kick out of the following URL because he states: "more
>>than 1,400 architectural and engineering professionals have called for a
>>new, truly independent investigation":
>>><http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm><
>>
>> And yet the person that posted the above never considers the testimony of
>> just one expert on nuclear explosives? Too funny.
>>
>> The real shills are and they are the ones that can't see the abundant
>> evidence that mini nukes were planted 50 meters deep in the granite at
>> Ground Zero and still left a mushroom shaped smoke cloud over the North
>> Tower that expanded against the wind.
>
> MORON Rocky:
> The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings had NONE of the characteristics of a
> nuclear detonation, even a small one.

You mean except for ground shaking so bad people felt it, the mushroom cloud
shortly after the explosion, the flattened buildings with the exception of
one surviving corner, the particles that were so small they floated up up
and away and the heat underground that lasted for months? More at:
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s

It is obvious you have no idea what a real nuclear explosion does because
you were brainwashed by TV in more than one area.

If Richard Gage would look at the complete destruction of the North and
South Tower with the exception of one surviving corner on each building he
would have to admit the debris pile does not fit the classic controlled
demolition because there were surviving corners.

> Professionally installed demolition explosives were all that were
> necessary.

I thought that for 12 years until I realized a CD could not explain the
surviving corners or what happened to the building north of WTC 7 but mini
nukes can.

> Now go find yourself a good shrink, and stop trying to make all those
> exposing the TRUTH about 9/11 look like the kind of obsessed LOON that you
> are!

You have done nothing at all to even try to explain the debris field for the
North and South Tower or why the building north of WTC7 was also damaged.

You have to look at the entire picture to see that Richard Gage is holding
out on you and I could call him a shill.

Rocky

[Freedom Man]

"Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote in message

news:SIydndYeToseQyjP...@giganews.com...

>
> "Freedom Man" <frees...@4eva.com> wrote in message
> news:l94kp7$s5e$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:LpidnaUvx-ZnWSnP...@giganews.com...
>>>I got a great big kick out of the following URL because he states: "more
>>>than 1,400 architectural and engineering professionals have called for a
>>>new, truly independent investigation":
>>>><http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm><
>>>
>>> And yet the person that posted the above never considers the testimony
>>> of just one expert on nuclear explosives? Too funny.
>>>
>>> The real shills are and they are the ones that can't see the abundant
>>> evidence that mini nukes were planted 50 meters deep in the granite at
>>> Ground Zero and still left a mushroom shaped smoke cloud over the North
>>> Tower that expanded against the wind.
>>
>> MORON Rocky:
>> The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings had NONE of the characteristics of a
>> nuclear detonation, even a small one.
>
> You mean except for ground shaking so bad people felt it, the mushroom
> cloud shortly after the explosion, the flattened buildings with the
> exception of one surviving corner, the particles that were so small they
> floated up up and away and the heat underground that lasted for months?
> More at:
> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s

How could the ground NOT shake with those high explosive demolition charges
going off from top to bottom, and then with tons of building debris falling
on it? A mushroom cloud often occurs with an explosion - it need not be a
NUCLEAR explosion!
The heat and molten iron were from the thermate. The particles were the
result of the high explosives pulverizing the concrete. NO "NUKES" needed at
all!

> It is obvious you have no idea what a real nuclear explosion does because
> you were brainwashed by TV in more than one area.

What an asshole you are to presume I am ignorant when it is YOU that is
ignorant!
I am an engineer, educated in physics and chemistry. I know in technical
detail the difference between low explosives, high explosives, and nuclear
explosives.
What are YOUR qualifications? I doubt that you will answer this, as you
would even further expose your ignorance!

> If Richard Gage would look at the complete destruction of the North and
> South Tower with the exception of one surviving corner on each building he
> would have to admit the debris pile does not fit the classic controlled
> demolition because there were surviving corners.

Nonsense! In the towers, the supports were not blown out from the bottom as
with the standard demoltion procedure used for building 7. The demolition
was started at the TOPS of the buildings to simulate a "pancake collapse."

>> Professionally installed demolition explosives were all that were
>> necessary.
>
> I thought that for 12 years until I realized a CD could not explain the
> surviving corners or what happened to the building north of WTC 7 but mini
> nukes can.

See above, ignoramous!

>> Now go find yourself a good shrink, and stop trying to make all those
>> exposing the TRUTH about 9/11 look like the kind of obsessed LOON that
>> you
>> are!

> You have done nothing at all to even try to explain the debris field for
> the North and South Tower or why the building north of WTC7 was also
> damaged.

See above, ignoramous!

[george152]

On 22/12/13 02:09, Brad Guth wrote:
> Apparently those 1400 professionals are all kinda worthless individuals that
> simply don't know anything about structural forensics nor physics, and
> obviously couldn't follow the money if their own life depended upon it.

You finally got it.
Now go away

[george152]

On 22/12/13 04:31, Rocky wrote:

> And BKD your explanation for the two surviving corners of the Twin Towers
> that were not covered by debris was what?
>
> It is still hilarious that just one expert in nuclear explosives could
> explain a lot more than 1,400 architectural and engineering professionals.

I blame the aliens brain numbing rays for this gem

[george152]

On 22/12/13 06:56, Freedom Man wrote:

> MORON Rocky:
> The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings had NONE of the characteristics of a
> nuclear detonation, even a small one.
> Professionally installed demolition explosives were all that were necessary.
>
> Now go find yourself a good shrink, and stop trying to make all those
> exposing the TRUTH about 9/11 look like the kind of obsessed LOON that you
> are!
>
>

Spot on about rolloverrocky

[Tony Dragon]

On 21/12/2013 18:33, Rocky wrote:
> "Freedom Man" <frees...@4eva.com> wrote in message
> news:l94kp7$s5e$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote in message
>> news:LpidnaUvx-ZnWSnP...@giganews.com...
>>> I got a great big kick out of the following URL because he states: "more
>>> than 1,400 architectural and engineering professionals have called for a
>>> new, truly independent investigation":
>>>> <http://www.takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm><
>>>
>>> And yet the person that posted the above never considers the testimony of
>>> just one expert on nuclear explosives? Too funny.
>>>
>>> The real shills are and they are the ones that can't see the abundant
>>> evidence that mini nukes were planted 50 meters deep in the granite at
>>> Ground Zero and still left a mushroom shaped smoke cloud over the North
>>> Tower that expanded against the wind.
>>
>> MORON Rocky:
>> The collapses of the 3 WTC buildings had NONE of the characteristics of a
>> nuclear detonation, even a small one.
>
> You mean except for ground shaking so bad people felt it,

A
Two aircraft crashed into two buildings, these buildings (and others)
fell down to the ground, who would have expected people to have felt it.

> the mushroom cloud

Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.

> shortly after the explosion, the flattened buildings with the exception of
> one surviving corner,

The building that fell down were flattened, who would have thought that.

> the particles that were so small they floated up up
> and away

Small particles went upwards in the updraught, who would have thought that.

> and the heat underground that lasted for months?

Wow a youtube that clims something, but offers no proof, who would have
thought that.

> More at:
> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s
>
> It is obvious you have no idea what a real nuclear explosion does because
> you were brainwashed by TV in more than one area.
>

Wow, Rooky pretends to know something (but doesn't), who would have
thought that.

> If Richard Gage would look at the complete destruction of the North and
> South Tower with the exception of one surviving corner on each building he
> would have to admit the debris pile does not fit the classic controlled
> demolition because there were surviving corners.
>

Well if he hasn't, then you can't say that he would.
Rooky tries to twist what has been said, who would have thought that.

>
>> Professionally installed demolition explosives were all that were
>> necessary.
>
> I thought that for 12 years until I realized a CD could not explain the
> surviving corners or what happened to the building north of WTC 7 but mini
> nukes can.
>
>

Wow, Rooky admits he has been wrong, who would have thought that.

>> Now go find yourself a good shrink, and stop trying to make all those
>> exposing the TRUTH about 9/11 look like the kind of obsessed LOON that you
>> are!
>
> You have done nothing at all to even try to explain the debris field for the
> North and South Tower or why the building north of WTC7 was also damaged.
>

Wow Rooky does not understand what happens when tall buildings fall
down, who would have thought that.

> You have to look at the entire picture to see that Richard Gage is holding
> out on you and I could call him a shill.
>

Wow Rooky makes a statement that appears to have no basis in facts, who
would have thought that.


> Rooky
>
>

[Rocky]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:cKGdnaNya40VeyjP...@giganews.com...

Is moving goalpost all you can do?

The "official story" is a lie and is easily proven to be a lie by looking at
the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers. <G>

Rocky - 9/11 was a mini-nuke job

[Tony Dragon]

On 21/12/2013 21:28, Rocky wrote:
> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
> news:cKGdnaNya40VeyjP...@giganews.com...
>> On 22/12/13 04:31, Rocky wrote:
>>
>>> And BKD your explanation for the two surviving corners of the Twin Towers
>>> that were not covered by debris was what?
>>>
>>> It is still hilarious that just one expert in nuclear explosives could
>>> explain a lot more than 1,400 architectural and engineering
>>> professionals.
>>
>>
>> I blame the aliens brain numbing rays for this gem
>
> Is moving goalpost all you can do?

He was just trying to keep up with you, you do it all the time.

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:Ko2dnUTJmvUjZijP...@bt.com...

Two things wrong with that.

1. If the Twin Towers fell down to the ground why was there a Surviving
Corner for WTC 2 and a Surviving Corner for WTC 1?

2. The ground shook 12 seconds before the collapse of the Twin Towers and
nothing happened when they floated away. Even videos prove there was no
thud from a building that was floating away.

>> the mushroom cloud
>
> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.

If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the cloud of
smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that a-bombs
use.

>> shortly after the explosion, the flattened buildings with the exception
>> of
>> one surviving corner,
>
> The building that fell down were flattened, who would have thought that.

A N D? Why didn't the "Surviving Corners" get flattened? I'm just dying to
see how you answer that one. <G>

>> the particles that were so small they floated up up
>> and away
>
> Small particles went upwards in the updraught, who would have thought
> that.

Those were not just "small particles" but ultra fine particles and you
failed to state how they were created.

And you failed to state that the updraft was caused by the heat from the
exact same nuke that created them in the first place.

In other words those ultra fine particles created by a mini nukes used the
heat from mini nukes to take off like shills on a hot air balloon ride.

>> and the heat underground that lasted for months?
>
> Wow a youtube that clims something, but offers no proof, who would have
> thought that.

Don't be so sure of that. There is pleny of support for the lingering heat
and now I know it was from where the three mini nukes were placed.

>> More at:
>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s
>>
>> It is obvious you have no idea what a real nuclear explosion does because
>> you were brainwashed by TV in more than one area.
>>
>
> Wow, Rooky pretends to know something (but doesn't), who would have
> thought that.

Look at you. You claim the Twin Towers collapsed and yet you can not
provide a single shred of evidence that proves that. What photos prove is
they floated away and left "Surviving Corners" and that those same photos
with the "Surviving Corners" tell us where the 3 mini nukes were placed.
<G>

>> If Richard Gage would look at the complete destruction of the North and
>> South Tower with the exception of one surviving corner on each building
>> he
>> would have to admit the debris pile does not fit the classic controlled
>> demolition because there were surviving corners.
>>
>
> Well if he hasn't, then you can't say that he would.
> Rooky tries to twist what has been said, who would have thought that.

"twist?" Just pointing out what is more important than WTC 7 is Fiterman
Hall because it was not damaged by a CD or a DEW so it had to be a mini
nuke.

>>> Professionally installed demolition explosives were all that were
>>> necessary.
>>
>> I thought that for 12 years until I realized a CD could not explain the
>> surviving corners or what happened to the building north of WTC 7 but
>> mini
>> nukes can.
>>
>>
>
> Wow, Rooky admits he has been wrong, who would have thought that.

And you haven't been able to prove the Twin Towers collapsed. <G>

>>> Now go find yourself a good shrink, and stop trying to make all those
>>> exposing the TRUTH about 9/11 look like the kind of obsessed LOON that
>>> you
>>> are!
>>
>> You have done nothing at all to even try to explain the debris field for
>> the
>> North and South Tower or why the building north of WTC7 was also damaged.
>>
>
> Wow Rooky does not understand what happens when tall buildings fall down,
> who would have thought that.

Oh T-annoy you keep saying fall down and yet you can not prove they fell
down when the evidence proves they floated away leaving "Surviving Corners"
that tell us where two of the three mini nukes were placed.

>> You have to look at the entire picture to see that Richard Gage is
>> holding
>> out on you and I could call him a shill.
>
> Wow Rooky makes a statement that appears to have no basis in facts, who
> would have thought that.

And your evidence that the Twin Towers collapsed is what? <G>

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:_MSdncIe8PW7kCvP...@bt.com...

> On 21/12/2013 21:28, Rocky wrote:
>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>> news:cKGdnaNya40VeyjP...@giganews.com...
>>> On 22/12/13 04:31, Rocky wrote:
>>>
>>>> And BKD your explanation for the two surviving corners of the Twin
>>>> Towers
>>>> that were not covered by debris was what?
>>>>
>>>> It is still hilarious that just one expert in nuclear explosives could
>>>> explain a lot more than 1,400 architectural and engineering
>>>> professionals.
>>>
>>>
>>> I blame the aliens brain numbing rays for this gem
>>
>> Is moving goalpost all you can do?
>
> He was just trying to keep up with you, you do it all the time.

ROTFLMAO Because you are the one that keeps trying to move goalpost with
your following bullshit: "The building that fell down were flattened."
<G>

The evidence proves the Twin Towers were not flattened because they both
left a "Surviving Corner" that was used to determine where mini nukes were
placed.

The "official story" from T-Annoy is a lie and is easily proven to be a lie
by looking at the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers. See:
http://youtu.be/Lec9giab90I?t=2h27m7s

[Government Shill #2]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:30:35 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
>"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:Ko2dnUTJmvUjZijP...@bt.com...
>> On 21/12/2013 18:33, Rocky wrote:

>>> the mushroom cloud
>>
>> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.
>
>If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the cloud of
>smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that a-bombs
>use.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

"...the exact same principle that a-bombs use."

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Shill #2
--
Roses are red,
violets are blue,
one of us is a moron,
I think that it's you.

[Iskandar Baharuddin]

I have read a lot of crap in usenet but this is epic.

Did you watch TV on 11 September 2001? Do you think that Stephen
Spielberg and George Lucas were drafted to fake the vision of the planes
flying into the towers.

If I thought you actually believe what you write I would...

Never mind.

--
Salaam, Izzy

Ciri sa-bumi, cara sa-desa.

[george152]

On 22/12/13 10:28, Rocky wrote:

rubbish

[Rocky]

"Freedom Man" <frees...@4eva.com> wrote in message

news:l94npn$fb5$1...@dont-email.me...

But not a shake that had to be over a 5.0 on the Richter scale to be felt
the way it was felt.

And it was at least 12 seconds before any downward movement of the top part
of the building because the blast had to work through 50 meters of granite
first.

> and then with tons of building debris falling on it?

WTF? There was no thud from "tons of building debris falling on it" and if
you look there were even surviving corners of both of the Twin Towers. See:
http://youtu.be/Lec9giab90I?t=2h27m7s

> A mushroom cloud often occurs with an explosion - it need not be a NUCLEAR
> explosion!

It has to have a lot of heat to create a mushroom cloud and even super
thermate does not get hot enough.

> The heat and molten iron were from the thermate. The particles were the
> result of the high explosives pulverizing the concrete. NO "NUKES" needed
> at all!

But it pulverized everything and it pulverized it to ultra fine if not
further for it to float up up and away using the heat from the mini nukes
themselves.

>> It is obvious you have no idea what a real nuclear explosion does because
>> you were brainwashed by TV in more than one area.
>
> What an asshole you are to presume I am ignorant when it is YOU that is
> ignorant!
> I am an engineer, educated in physics and chemistry. I know in technical
> detail the difference between low explosives, high explosives, and nuclear
> explosives.

If true then you can explain what happens to anything within 350 meters of a
150 kt mini nuke. Right? Then why didn't you?

> What are YOUR qualifications? I doubt that you will answer this, as you
> would even further expose your ignorance!

Oh, so reading a book by an expert on nuclear explosives didn't tell me
anything? Shame on you.

You obviously didn't read a book by an expert on what happens to anything
within 400 meters of a 150 kt mini nuke or you would know it removes the
bond between molecules without ripping them apart at the same time. Meaning
the Twin Towers could have appeared to be solid but in real life they were
just dust.

>> If Richard Gage would look at the complete destruction of the North and
>> South Tower with the exception of one surviving corner on each building
>> he would have to admit the debris pile does not fit the classic
>> controlled demolition because there were surviving corners.
>
> Nonsense! In the towers, the supports were not blown out from the bottom
> as with the standard demoltion procedure used for building 7. The
> demolition was started at the TOPS of the buildings to simulate a "pancake
> collapse."

But long before the top part appeared to reach the ground the bottom 300
meters of the Twin Towers was pulverized to an ultra fine dust that floated
away on the heat created by the same mini nuke that made the ultra fine
particles.

>>> Professionally installed demolition explosives were all that were
>>> necessary.
>>
>> I thought that for 12 years until I realized a CD could not explain the
>> surviving corners or what happened to the building north of WTC 7 but
>> mini nukes can.
>
> See above, ignoramous!

How can you prove super thermate could make ultra fine particles when we
both know a mini nuke can make ultra fine particles.

And on top of that how can super thermate leave "Surviving Corners" on both
of the Twin Towers?
http://youtu.be/Lec9giab90I?t=2h27m7s

>>> Now go find yourself a good shrink, and stop trying to make all those
>>> exposing the TRUTH about 9/11 look like the kind of obsessed LOON that
>>> you
>>> are!
>
>> You have done nothing at all to even try to explain the debris field for
>> the North and South Tower or why the building north of WTC7 was also
>> damaged.
>
> See above, ignoramous!

How many times do I have to say this? The super thermate theory only
explains the top part of the Twin Towers and the debris field with the
"Surviving Corners" is only explained by a mini nuke. See:
http://youtu.be/Lec9giab90I?t=2h27m7s

Rocky

[Government Shill #2]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:25:50 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

>You obviously didn't read a book by an expert on what happens to anything
>within 400 meters of a 150 kt mini nuke or you would know it removes the
>bond between molecules without ripping them apart at the same time. Meaning
>the Twin Towers could have appeared to be solid but in real life they were
>just dust.

Wow! That is *the* most fucked up thing ever posted on any newsgroup, ever.

I think Freedo is absolutely right. Rockhead is a government agent, tasked to
post here to make truthers look like a pack of idiots.

Shill #2
--
"... the truthfulness of the following statement is not important but it could
be true..."
Roger Wittekind (Rocky) alt.conspiracy 16 Oct 13

[Tony Dragon]

On 21/12/2013 22:41, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:_MSdncIe8PW7kCvP...@bt.com...
>> On 21/12/2013 21:28, Rocky wrote:
>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>> news:cKGdnaNya40VeyjP...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 22/12/13 04:31, Rocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And BKD your explanation for the two surviving corners of the Twin
>>>>> Towers
>>>>> that were not covered by debris was what?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is still hilarious that just one expert in nuclear explosives could
>>>>> explain a lot more than 1,400 architectural and engineering
>>>>> professionals.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I blame the aliens brain numbing rays for this gem
>>>
>>> Is moving goalpost all you can do?
>>
>> He was just trying to keep up with you, you do it all the time.
>
> ROTFLMAO Because you are the one that keeps trying to move goalpost with
> your following bullshit: "The building that fell down were flattened."
> <G>
>

Your words.

> The evidence proves the Twin Towers were not flattened because they both
> left a "Surviving Corner" that was used to determine where mini nukes were
> placed.
>
> The "official story" from T-Annoy is a lie

I have given no 'official story' so I can't have lied, do try to read &
think before you post.

> and is easily proven to be a lie
> by looking at the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers. See:
> http://youtu.be/Lec9giab90I?t=2h27m7s
>
> Rocky - 9/11 was a mini-nuke job
>
>

I'm glad you brought that up, as you have, would you answer the following :-

Were they fission, fusion or just dirty?
What was the yield for each one?
What nuclear elements were used?
How was fussion/fission initiated?
What was the level of radioactivity after the events?
What was/is the half life of the remains?

I'm sure you know the answers & just missed my post asking you last
time, obviously you must know the answers or else you could not make the
claim about mini-nukes.

[Tony Dragon]

Why should there not be a 'surviving corner', the building collapsed
from near the top?

> 2. The ground shook 12 seconds before the collapse of the Twin Towers and
> nothing happened when they floated away. Even videos prove there was no
> thud from a building that was floating away.
>

And....

>>> the mushroom cloud
>>
>> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.
>
> If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the cloud of
> smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that a-bombs
> use.
>

So because smoke appears to expand against the wind, it must be a
mushroom cloud, how strange.

>
>>> shortly after the explosion, the flattened buildings with the exception
>>> of
>>> one surviving corner,
>>
>> The building that fell down were flattened, who would have thought that.
>
> A N D? Why didn't the "Surviving Corners" get flattened? I'm just dying to
> see how you answer that one. <G>
>

I've no answer except to ask why they should get flattened.

>
>>> the particles that were so small they floated up up
>>> and away
>>
>> Small particles went upwards in the updraught, who would have thought
>> that.
>
> Those were not just "small particles" but ultra fine particles and you
> failed to state how they were created.
>

Big building falls down.
BTW smoke is small particles.

> And you failed to state that the updraft was caused by the heat from the
> exact same nuke that created them in the first place.
>

How can I fail to state something of which there is no conclusive proof?

> In other words those ultra fine particles created by a mini nukes used the
> heat from mini nukes to take off like shills on a hot air balloon ride.
>
>

'In other words'......

>>> and the heat underground that lasted for months?
>>
>> Wow a youtube that clims something, but offers no proof, who would have
>> thought that.
>
> Don't be so sure of that. There is pleny of support for the lingering heat
> and now I know it was from where the three mini nukes were placed.
>

'Now I know'........

>>> More at:
>>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s
>>>
>>> It is obvious you have no idea what a real nuclear explosion does because
>>> you were brainwashed by TV in more than one area.
>>>
>>
>> Wow, Rooky pretends to know something (but doesn't), who would have
>> thought that.
>
> Look at you. You claim the Twin Towers collapsed and yet you can not
> provide a single shred of evidence that proves that.

Apart from the fact that they are no longer standing.

> What photos prove is
> they floated away and left "Surviving Corners" and that those same photos
> with the "Surviving Corners" tell us where the 3 mini nukes were placed.
> <G>
>
>
>>> If Richard Gage would look at the complete destruction of the North and
>>> South Tower with the exception of one surviving corner on each building
>>> he
>>> would have to admit the debris pile does not fit the classic controlled
>>> demolition because there were surviving corners.
>>>
>>
>> Well if he hasn't, then you can't say that he would.
>> Rooky tries to twist what has been said, who would have thought that.
>
> "twist?" Just pointing out what is more important than WTC 7 is Fiterman
> Hall because it was not damaged by a CD or a DEW so it had to be a mini
> nuke.
>

Wow more Rooky 'logic'.

>
>>>> Professionally installed demolition explosives were all that were
>>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> I thought that for 12 years until I realized a CD could not explain the
>>> surviving corners or what happened to the building north of WTC 7 but
>>> mini
>>> nukes can.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wow, Rooky admits he has been wrong, who would have thought that.
>
> And you haven't been able to prove the Twin Towers collapsed. <G>
>
>

Are they there now, (no) did they fall down (yes), so they have collapsed.

>>>> Now go find yourself a good shrink, and stop trying to make all those
>>>> exposing the TRUTH about 9/11 look like the kind of obsessed LOON that
>>>> you
>>>> are!
>>>
>>> You have done nothing at all to even try to explain the debris field for
>>> the
>>> North and South Tower or why the building north of WTC7 was also damaged.
>>>
>>
>> Wow Rooky does not understand what happens when tall buildings fall down,
>> who would have thought that.
>
> Oh T-annoy you keep saying fall down and yet you can not prove they fell
> down when the evidence proves they floated away leaving "Surviving Corners"
> that tell us where two of the three mini nukes were placed.
>
>

It's simple to prove they fell down, they are not there now & they left
debris on the ground.

>>> You have to look at the entire picture to see that Richard Gage is
>>> holding
>>> out on you and I could call him a shill.
>>
>> Wow Rooky makes a statement that appears to have no basis in facts, who
>> would have thought that.
>
> And your evidence that the Twin Towers collapsed is what? <G>
>

Vision, logic, sense, etc.

> Rooky
>
>

[Rocky]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pdacb95o9sr9fm4kf...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:25:50 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>You obviously didn't read a book by an expert on what happens to anything
>>within 400 meters of a 150 kt mini nuke or you would know it removes the
>>bond between molecules without ripping them apart at the same time.
>>Meaning
>>the Twin Towers could have appeared to be solid but in real life they were
>>just dust.
>
> Wow! That is *the* most fucked up thing ever posted on any newsgroup,
> ever.

And your explanation for the "Surviving Corners" was what? If your
explanation is like T-annoy's then it is a lie. <G>
http://youtu.be/Lec9giab90I?t=2h27m7s

And if you watched the above video he says about the same thing I stated.
<G>

And if you watch the destruction of the Twin Towers you can see there is a
place where they go from being a solid building to just dust. <G>

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:rKudnYGyav1frCvP...@bt.com...

So why did you lie with the statement: "The building that fell down were
flattened" when the evidence proves there were "Surviving Corners?"
http://youtu.be/Lec9giab90I?t=2h27m7s

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:fK2dncVGYMC7qCvP...@bt.com...

Does that mean you admit the bottom half of the Twin Towers were pulveized
to a ultra fine dust by a mini nuke and floated away? I hope so.

>> 2. The ground shook 12 seconds before the collapse of the Twin Towers
>> and
>> nothing happened when they floated away. Even videos prove there was no
>> thud from a building that was floating away.
>>
>
> And....

All that thick dust in the air that was really the Twin Towers before it was
pulverized by a mini nuke acted like a pillow for the falling debris from
the upper floors so the debris could not go crashing to the ground with a
thud because it landed on a pillow made of very thick dust instead. That is
why the surviving corners survived.

So the reason the Twin Towers could not fall at free fall is dust does not
fall as fast as a solid object and we have just figured out why WTC 7 slowed
down when most of it was turned into a cloud of dust. Thanks.

>>>> the mushroom cloud
>>>
>>> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.
>>
>> If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the cloud of
>> smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that
>> a-bombs
>> use.
>>
>
> So because smoke appears to expand against the wind, it must be a mushroom
> cloud, how strange.

Where is your evidence of "appears" because you can tell the smoke is
blowing one way yet the mushroom cloud goes the another.

>>>> shortly after the explosion, the flattened buildings with the exception
>>>> of
>>>> one surviving corner,
>>>
>>> The building that fell down were flattened, who would have thought that.
>>
>> A N D? Why didn't the "Surviving Corners" get flattened? I'm just dying
>> to
>> see how you answer that one. <G>
>>
>
> I've no answer except to ask why they should get flattened.

They did not get flattened because everything right above the "Surviving
Corners" was turned to dust by a nuclear pulse. And that pulse is unlike a
blast as you can see by looking close at the destruction of the Twin Towers
and noticing when they were no longer a structure but just a real thick dust
cloud that resembed the building it once was.

>>>> the particles that were so small they floated up up
>>>> and away
>>>
>>> Small particles went upwards in the updraught, who would have thought
>>> that.
>>
>> Those were not just "small particles" but ultra fine particles and you
>> failed to state how they were created.
>>
>
> Big building falls down.

And then why didn't the falling building damage the surviving corners? <G>

> BTW smoke is small particles.

So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Or are you
goal shifting again?

Even Ed admits that massive debris cloud floating up up and away was
pulverized building material but he doesn't want to admit it was also
pulverized steel.

>> And you failed to state that the updraft was caused by the heat from the
>> exact same nuke that created them in the first place.
>>
>
> How can I fail to state something of which there is no conclusive proof?

Oh, so you think the updraft just happened to be there? How cute. Looks
like you are trying to add more bullshit to official lies because the type
of destruction and the surviving corners proved that there was also a lot of
heat from a nuclear event that carried the ultra find debris up like T-Annoy
in a hot air balioon.

>> In other words those ultra fine particles created by a mini nukes used
>> the
>> heat from mini nukes to take off like shills on a hot air balloon ride.
>>
>>
>
> 'In other words'......
>
>
>>>> and the heat underground that lasted for months?
>>>
>>> Wow a youtube that clims something, but offers no proof, who would have
>>> thought that.
>>
>> Don't be so sure of that. There is pleny of support for the lingering
>> heat
>> and now I know it was from where the three mini nukes were placed.
>>
>
>
> 'Now I know'........
>
>>>> More at:
>>>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU?t=29m30s
>>>>
>>>> It is obvious you have no idea what a real nuclear explosion does
>>>> because
>>>> you were brainwashed by TV in more than one area.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, Rooky pretends to know something (but doesn't), who would have
>>> thought that.
>>
>> Look at you. You claim the Twin Towers collapsed and yet you can not
>> provide a single shred of evidence that proves that.
>
> Apart from the fact that they are no longer standing.

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT because the "Surviving Corners" were still
standing you IDIOT. Man, your stupidity or your outright lies is amazing.
See:
http://youtu.be/Lec9giab90I?t=2h27m7s

This is the entire issue. The only reason for surviving corners is the
nuclear pulse could not pulverize that section of the towers because of
where it was located.

The truth has been posted before and that was the plan was to take out the
entire World Trade Center and not just the towers so the mini nukes were
planted between buildings instead of right under the towers. And it was the
offset of the mini nukes that made it so easy to spot exactly where they
were located. <G>

Rocky

[george152]

On 22/12/13 12:55, Government Shill #2 wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:25:50 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> You obviously didn't read a book by an expert on what happens to anything
>> within 400 meters of a 150 kt mini nuke or you would know it removes the
>> bond between molecules without ripping them apart at the same time. Meaning
>> the Twin Towers could have appeared to be solid but in real life they were
>> just dust.
>
> Wow! That is *the* most fucked up thing ever posted on any newsgroup, ever.
>
> I think Freedo is absolutely right. Rockhead is a government agent, tasked to
> post here to make truthers look like a pack of idiots.

Not the hardest task in the world.
We DO know what happens to any-one or thing within 400 meters of a nuke.
And those claims are not correct. Laughable but not correct

[Rocky]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

news:fNednYgEFp9yxSvP...@giganews.com...

And your explanation for the massive debris cloud that floated away from the
World Trade Center for weeks was what? Jet Fuel? Now that is ludicrous.
<G>

Rocky

[Tony Dragon]

> Rooky
>
>

Rooky now proves that he does not understand the English language.

[Tony Dragon]

Ahh the Rooky ploy, where he evades giving an answer & draw an erroneous
conclusion.

>>> 2. The ground shook 12 seconds before the collapse of the Twin Towers
>>> and
>>> nothing happened when they floated away. Even videos prove there was no
>>> thud from a building that was floating away.
>>>
>>
>> And....
>
> All that thick dust in the air that was really the Twin Towers before it was
> pulverized by a mini nuke acted like a pillow for the falling debris from
> the upper floors so the debris could not go crashing to the ground with a
> thud because it landed on a pillow made of very thick dust instead. That is
> why the surviving corners survived.

A pillow of thick dust that stopped debris falling through it.
I must remember that one, it should bring a laugh or two when I tell it.

>
> So the reason the Twin Towers could not fall at free fall is dust does not
> fall as fast as a solid object and we have just figured out why WTC 7 slowed
> down when most of it was turned into a cloud of dust. Thanks.
>

Dust is solid just smaller, your point fails

>>>>> the mushroom cloud
>>>>
>>>> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.
>>>
>>> If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the cloud of
>>> smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that
>>> a-bombs
>>> use.
>>>
>>
>> So because smoke appears to expand against the wind, it must be a mushroom
>> cloud, how strange.
>
> Where is your evidence of "appears" because you can tell the smoke is
> blowing one way yet the mushroom cloud goes the another.
>
>

Learn what the word 'appears' means, clue it has something to do with
appearance.

>>>>> shortly after the explosion, the flattened buildings with the exception
>>>>> of
>>>>> one surviving corner,
>>>>
>>>> The building that fell down were flattened, who would have thought that.
>>>
>>> A N D? Why didn't the "Surviving Corners" get flattened? I'm just dying
>>> to
>>> see how you answer that one. <G>
>>>
>>
>> I've no answer except to ask why they should get flattened.
>
> They did not get flattened because everything right above the "Surviving
> Corners" was turned to dust by a nuclear pulse.

Please describe a 'nuclear pulse' (this should be interesting)

> And that pulse is unlike a
> blast as you can see by looking close at the destruction of the Twin Towers
> and noticing when they were no longer a structure but just a real thick dust
> cloud that resembed the building it once was.
>
>

So we now have a dust cloud that looks like a building, how quaint.

>>>>> the particles that were so small they floated up up
>>>>> and away
>>>>
>>>> Small particles went upwards in the updraught, who would have thought
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> Those were not just "small particles" but ultra fine particles and you
>>> failed to state how they were created.
>>>
>>
>> Big building falls down.
>
> And then why didn't the falling building damage the surviving corners? <G>
>

So some of the building did not completely collapse (if we accept your
premise), so what.

>> BTW smoke is small particles.
>
> So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

No idea, are you trying to twist the thread into one on commodity prices?

> Or are you
> goal shifting again?

Hardly, you used the words 'smoke' & 'particles'.

>
> Even Ed admits that massive debris cloud floating up up and away was
> pulverized building material but he doesn't want to admit it was also
> pulverized steel.
>
>

There you go again, trying to twist peoples posts, you have no idea what
he wants to admit.

>>> And you failed to state that the updraft was caused by the heat from the
>>> exact same nuke that created them in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> How can I fail to state something of which there is no conclusive proof?
>
> Oh, so you think the updraft just happened to be there?

Updrafts often occur near large buildings

> How cute.

Thank you.

> Looks
> like you are trying to add more bullshit to official lies because the type
> of destruction and the surviving corners proved that there was also a lot of
> heat from a nuclear event

So the fires did not get hot, because if they did you would get an updraft.

Yes, if there were 'surviving corners' then they would be still standing.

> Man, your stupidity or your outright lies is amazing.

You should know about both, for myself I prefer logic, science & common
sense.

> See:
> http://youtu.be/Lec9giab90I?t=2h27m7s
>
> This is the entire issue. The only reason for surviving corners is the
> nuclear pulse could not pulverize that section of the towers because of
> where it was located.
>
> The truth has been posted before and that was the plan was to take out the
> entire World Trade Center and not just the towers so the mini nukes were
> planted between buildings instead of right under the towers. And it was the
> offset of the mini nukes that made it so easy to spot exactly where they
> were located. <G>
>

> Rooky
>
>

Do explain to us what you understand a 'nuclear pulse' to be.

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:drSdncQupMJNLyvP...@bt.com...

You lied now you move goalpost and I'll bet you didn't learn anything. Here
this should help:

04 - Phenomena
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:XqKdnYGLe86cWyvP...@bt.com...

There are so many similarities between Ground Zero and a nuke and you will
not even look into them. So you want to stay stupid. Here, let me try it
again:

04 - Phenomena
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

>>>> 2. The ground shook 12 seconds before the collapse of the Twin Towers
>>>> and
>>>> nothing happened when they floated away. Even videos prove there was
>>>> no
>>>> thud from a building that was floating away.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And....
>>
>> All that thick dust in the air that was really the Twin Towers before it
>> was
>> pulverized by a mini nuke acted like a pillow for the falling debris from
>> the upper floors so the debris could not go crashing to the ground with a
>> thud because it landed on a pillow made of very thick dust instead. That
>> is
>> why the surviving corners survived.
>
> A pillow of thick dust that stopped debris falling through it.
> I must remember that one, it should bring a laugh or two when I tell it.

T-annoy I did not say stopped asshole. A pillow made of dust can not stop
anything but it might have slowed it down.

Still there were surviving corners and why can't you admit that?

>> So the reason the Twin Towers could not fall at free fall is dust does
>> not
>> fall as fast as a solid object and we have just figured out why WTC 7
>> slowed
>> down when most of it was turned into a cloud of dust. Thanks.
>>
>
> Dust is solid just smaller, your point fails

And your explanition of the Surviving Corners is what?

>>>>>> the mushroom cloud
>>>>>
>>>>> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.
>>>>
>>>> If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the cloud
>>>> of
>>>> smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that
>>>> a-bombs
>>>> use.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So because smoke appears to expand against the wind, it must be a
>>> mushroom
>>> cloud, how strange.
>>
>> Where is your evidence of "appears" because you can tell the smoke is
>> blowing one way yet the mushroom cloud goes the another.
>>
>
> Learn what the word 'appears' means, clue it has something to do with
> appearance.

Goal post shift noticed and I'll bet you haven't seen:

04 - Phenomena
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

>>>>>> shortly after the explosion, the flattened buildings with the
>>>>>> exception
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> one surviving corner,
>>>>>
>>>>> The building that fell down were flattened, who would have thought
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> A N D? Why didn't the "Surviving Corners" get flattened? I'm just
>>>> dying
>>>> to
>>>> see how you answer that one. <G>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I've no answer except to ask why they should get flattened.
>>
>> They did not get flattened because everything right above the "Surviving
>> Corners" was turned to dust by a nuclear pulse.
>
> Please describe a 'nuclear pulse' (this should be interesting)

Why don't you just watch a video by a nuclear expert instead? Here is a
great one and make sure to start it from the start:

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

>> And that pulse is unlike a
>> blast as you can see by looking close at the destruction of the Twin
>> Towers
>> and noticing when they were no longer a structure but just a real thick
>> dust
>> cloud that resembed the building it once was.
>>
>>
>
> So we now have a dust cloud that looks like a building, how quaint.

Hey, T-annoy, why don't you just watch the video instead of being an
asshole?

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

>>>>>> the particles that were so small they floated up up
>>>>>> and away
>>>>>
>>>>> Small particles went upwards in the updraught, who would have thought
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> Those were not just "small particles" but ultra fine particles and you
>>>> failed to state how they were created.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Big building falls down.
>>
>> And then why didn't the falling building damage the surviving corners?
>> <G>
>>
>
> So some of the building did not completely collapse (if we accept your
> premise), so what.

But the part right above the surviving corner was turned to dust and you can
even see the edge where that happened. Once again these two should help you
a lot and make sure to see them both from the start and you can start with
the order given.

04 - Phenomena
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

>>> BTW smoke is small particles.
>>
>> So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
>
> No idea, are you trying to twist the thread into one on commodity prices?

Why did you try to change a cloud of debris to smoke?

>> Or are you
>> goal shifting again?
>
> Hardly, you used the words 'smoke' & 'particles'.

Yes, and where people claim the Towers collapsed they actually turned to
dust by a nuclear pulse and you should find both the following interesting:

04 - Phenomena
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

>> Even Ed admits that massive debris cloud floating up up and away was
>> pulverized building material but he doesn't want to admit it was also
>> pulverized steel.
>>
>
> There you go again, trying to twist peoples posts, you have no idea what
> he wants to admit.

BULLSHIT Ed has already admitted there was "pulverized concrete" in the
dust and now he has added a few other items too.

T-annoy you are such a liar and I'll bet you haven't even checked out the
following:

04 - Phenomena
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

>>>> And you failed to state that the updraft was caused by the heat from
>>>> the
>>>> exact same nuke that created them in the first place.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How can I fail to state something of which there is no conclusive proof?
>>
>> Oh, so you think the updraft just happened to be there?
>
> Updrafts often occur near large buildings

Yes, especially if a nuke had just gone off. Duh.

04 - Phenomena
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

>> How cute.
>
> Thank you.

04 - Phenomena
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

>> Looks
>> like you are trying to add more bullshit to official lies because the
>> type
>> of destruction and the surviving corners proved that there was also a lot
>> of
>> heat from a nuclear event
>
> So the fires did not get hot, because if they did you would get an
> updraft.

That carried that much of the Twin Towers away? Oh boy your bullshit is
really getting bad. See:

04 - Phenomena
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

T-annoy I didn't say surviving buildings you asshole.

>> Man, your stupidity or your outright lies is amazing.
>
> You should know about both, for myself I prefer logic, science & common
> sense.

Oh, your changing goalpost again. Obviously you don't even want to consider
one mini nuke let alone three mini nukes. See:

04 - Phenomena
http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

>> See:
>> http://youtu.be/Lec9giab90I?t=2h27m7s
>>
>> This is the entire issue. The only reason for surviving corners is the
>> nuclear pulse could not pulverize that section of the towers because of
>> where it was located.
>>
>> The truth has been posted before and that was the plan was to take out
>> the
>> entire World Trade Center and not just the towers so the mini nukes were
>> planted between buildings instead of right under the towers. And it was
>> the
>> offset of the mini nukes that made it so easy to spot exactly where they
>> were located. <G>
>>
>> Rooky
>>
>>
>
> Do explain to us what you understand a 'nuclear pulse' to be.

It is in the following video and it talks about a pulverization area that
goes up about 300 meters and the crush area for the 50 meters above that.
You saw it happen too. If you ever watched the destruction of the Twin
Towers and notice that they were just dust at one point that was because of
a mini nuke. Here check out the following:

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

Rocky

[BDK]

In article <p76cb91numvknrlen...@4ax.com>,
gov....@gmail.com says...

>
> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:30:35 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >news:Ko2dnUTJmvUjZijP...@bt.com...
> >> On 21/12/2013 18:33, Rocky wrote:
>
> >>> the mushroom cloud
> >>
> >> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.
> >
> >If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the cloud of
> >smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that a-bombs
> >use.
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> "...the exact same principle that a-bombs use."
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> Shill #2

How can anyone believe he's not a troll? It's too stupid.

--
BDK- Head FUD-Master Blaster. Friend to all kOOkbashers.

[Tony Dragon]

Ok watched again, still no convincing evidence of a connection between
911 & a nuclear device.

>
>>>>> 2. The ground shook 12 seconds before the collapse of the Twin Towers
>>>>> and
>>>>> nothing happened when they floated away. Even videos prove there was
>>>>> no
>>>>> thud from a building that was floating away.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And....
>>>
>>> All that thick dust in the air that was really the Twin Towers before it
>>> was
>>> pulverized by a mini nuke acted like a pillow for the falling debris from
>>> the upper floors so the debris could not go crashing to the ground with a
>>> thud because it landed on a pillow made of very thick dust instead. That
>>> is
>>> why the surviving corners survived.
>>
>> A pillow of thick dust that stopped debris falling through it.
>> I must remember that one, it should bring a laugh or two when I tell it.
>
> T-annoy I did not say stopped asshole. A pillow made of dust can not stop
> anything but it might have slowed it down.

So when you said "the debris could not go crashing to the ground" you
didn't mean it, OK.

>
> Still there were surviving corners and why can't you admit that?
>
>

If the pictures show that, why would I not agree.

>>> So the reason the Twin Towers could not fall at free fall is dust does
>>> not
>>> fall as fast as a solid object and we have just figured out why WTC 7
>>> slowed
>>> down when most of it was turned into a cloud of dust. Thanks.
>>>
>>
>> Dust is solid just smaller, your point fails
>
> And your explanition of the Surviving Corners is what?
>
>

If the corners did in fact survive, then it was due to the dynamics of
the collapse.

>>>>>>> the mushroom cloud
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the cloud
>>>>> of
>>>>> smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that
>>>>> a-bombs
>>>>> use.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So because smoke appears to expand against the wind, it must be a
>>>> mushroom
>>>> cloud, how strange.
>>>
>>> Where is your evidence of "appears" because you can tell the smoke is
>>> blowing one way yet the mushroom cloud goes the another.
>>>
>>
>> Learn what the word 'appears' means, clue it has something to do with
>> appearance.
>
> Goal post shift noticed and I'll bet you haven't seen:

I'd be interested in how I tried to shift the goalposts, you used the
word smoke.

>
> 04 - Phenomena
> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>
>
>>>>>>> shortly after the explosion, the flattened buildings with the
>>>>>>> exception
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> one surviving corner,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The building that fell down were flattened, who would have thought
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> A N D? Why didn't the "Surviving Corners" get flattened? I'm just
>>>>> dying
>>>>> to
>>>>> see how you answer that one. <G>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've no answer except to ask why they should get flattened.
>>>
>>> They did not get flattened because everything right above the "Surviving
>>> Corners" was turned to dust by a nuclear pulse.
>>
>> Please describe a 'nuclear pulse' (this should be interesting)
>
> Why don't you just watch a video by a nuclear expert instead? Here is a
> great one and make sure to start it from the start:

So no answer then, OK.

>
> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>
>>> And that pulse is unlike a
>>> blast as you can see by looking close at the destruction of the Twin
>>> Towers
>>> and noticing when they were no longer a structure but just a real thick
>>> dust
>>> cloud that resembed the building it once was.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So we now have a dust cloud that looks like a building, how quaint.
>
> Hey, T-annoy, why don't you just watch the video instead of being an
> asshole?
>

You said that the dust looked like a building, see "just a real thick

dust cloud that resembed the building"

> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>
>>>>>>> the particles that were so small they floated up up
>>>>>>> and away
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Small particles went upwards in the updraught, who would have thought
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those were not just "small particles" but ultra fine particles and you
>>>>> failed to state how they were created.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Big building falls down.
>>>
>>> And then why didn't the falling building damage the surviving corners?
>>> <G>
>>>
>>
>> So some of the building did not completely collapse (if we accept your
>> premise), so what.
>
> But the part right above the surviving corner was turned to dust and you can
> even see the edge where that happened. Once again these two should help you
> a lot and make sure to see them both from the start and you can start with
> the order given.
>
> 04 - Phenomena
> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU

See above.

>
> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>
>>>> BTW smoke is small particles.
>>>
>>> So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
>>
>> No idea, are you trying to twist the thread into one on commodity prices?
>
> Why did you try to change a cloud of debris to smoke?
>
>

So the 'smoke' wasn't made up from materials from the WTC, strange.

>>> Or are you
>>> goal shifting again?
>>
>> Hardly, you used the words 'smoke' & 'particles'.
>
> Yes, and where people claim the Towers collapsed they actually turned to
> dust by a nuclear pulse and you should find both the following interesting:
>
> 04 - Phenomena
> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>
> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>
>

See above.

>>> Even Ed admits that massive debris cloud floating up up and away was
>>> pulverized building material but he doesn't want to admit it was also
>>> pulverized steel.
>>>
>>
>> There you go again, trying to twist peoples posts, you have no idea what
>> he wants to admit.
>
> BULLSHIT Ed has already admitted there was "pulverized concrete" in the
> dust and now he has added a few other items too.
>

Your words "but he doesn't want to admit", my post remains.

> T-annoy you are such a liar and I'll bet you haven't even checked out the
> following:
>

See above, BTW prove my lies.

> 04 - Phenomena
> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>
> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>
>>>>> And you failed to state that the updraft was caused by the heat from
>>>>> the
>>>>> exact same nuke that created them in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How can I fail to state something of which there is no conclusive proof?
>>>
>>> Oh, so you think the updraft just happened to be there?
>>
>> Updrafts often occur near large buildings
>
> Yes, especially if a nuke had just gone off. Duh.

And also if there is no explosion/fire etc.

>
> 04 - Phenomena
> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>
> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>
>>> How cute.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> 04 - Phenomena
> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>
> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>
>>> Looks
>>> like you are trying to add more bullshit to official lies because the
>>> type
>>> of destruction and the surviving corners proved that there was also a lot
>>> of
>>> heat from a nuclear event
>>
>> So the fires did not get hot, because if they did you would get an
>> updraft.
>
> That carried that much of the Twin Towers away? Oh boy your bullshit is
> really getting bad. See:

I see now what you are trying to say, If I state a fact that doesn't
agree with your ideas, it must be bullshit.

Nor did I, so by your rules you must be an asshole.

>
>
>>> Man, your stupidity or your outright lies is amazing.
>>
>> You should know about both, for myself I prefer logic, science & common
>> sense.
>
> Oh, your changing goalpost again.

So by answering your question I am shifting goalposts, what a quaint idea.

> Obviously you don't even want to consider
> one mini nuke let alone three mini nukes. See:
>
> 04 - Phenomena
> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>
> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>

See above.

>>> See:
>>> http://youtu.be/Lec9giab90I?t=2h27m7s
>>>
>>> This is the entire issue. The only reason for surviving corners is the
>>> nuclear pulse could not pulverize that section of the towers because of
>>> where it was located.
>>>
>>> The truth has been posted before and that was the plan was to take out
>>> the
>>> entire World Trade Center and not just the towers so the mini nukes were
>>> planted between buildings instead of right under the towers. And it was
>>> the
>>> offset of the mini nukes that made it so easy to spot exactly where they
>>> were located. <G>
>>>
>>> Rooky
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Do explain to us what you understand a 'nuclear pulse' to be.
>
> It is in the following video and it talks about a pulverization area that
> goes up about 300 meters and the crush area for the 50 meters above that.
> You saw it happen too. If you ever watched the destruction of the Twin
> Towers and notice that they were just dust at one point that was because of
> a mini nuke. Here check out the following:
>
> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>

> Rooky
>
>

So you don't know, how quaint.

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:ALmdnaYGp4FCZivP...@bt.com...

Riiight. Here, maybe this will help and it was written by a first
responder:

First Responder - "We Were Nuked on 9-11"
><http://www.henrymakow.com/joey_peeps.html><

Something had to keep the "Surviving Corners" surviving. They could have
been hit by debris but they didn't show it and their wasn't much debris
around them either.

The funny thing is people claim the other buildings were damaged by falling
debris but the surviving corners were not damaged by falling debris.
Riiight

The fact is the mini nukes were placed between buildings so they took care
of one of the towers and a building next to it at the same time so in
reality it was not falling debris that took out the other buildings but a
mini nuke.

>> Still there were surviving corners and why can't you admit that?
>>
>>
>
> If the pictures show that, why would I not agree.

Then don't give me crap about the towers were flattened because the
"Surviving Corners" made it easy for people to pin point where the mini
nukes were placed.

Some people and I don't know if it was everybody were not allowed to take
photos of Ground Zero. Probably because the photos proved it really was a
Ground Zero. <G>

>>>> So the reason the Twin Towers could not fall at free fall is dust does
>>>> not
>>>> fall as fast as a solid object and we have just figured out why WTC 7
>>>> slowed
>>>> down when most of it was turned into a cloud of dust. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dust is solid just smaller, your point fails
>>
>> And your explanition of the Surviving Corners is what?
>>
>>
>
> If the corners did in fact survive, then it was due to the dynamics of the
> collapse.

ROTFLMAO because now everybody gets to see T-annoy logic in action.

So you are saying the laws of physics changed for 9/11 where falling debis
doesn't fall on corners of the building. Yep, that's a keeper. NOT.

>>>>>>>> the mushroom cloud
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the
>>>>>> cloud
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that
>>>>>> a-bombs
>>>>>> use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So because smoke appears to expand against the wind, it must be a
>>>>> mushroom
>>>>> cloud, how strange.
>>>>
>>>> Where is your evidence of "appears" because you can tell the smoke is
>>>> blowing one way yet the mushroom cloud goes the another.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Learn what the word 'appears' means, clue it has something to do with
>>> appearance.
>>
>> Goal post shift noticed and I'll bet you haven't seen:
>
> I'd be interested in how I tried to shift the goalposts, you used the word
> smoke.

Because we were talking about the debris from the Twin Towers being
pulverized to the point it floated away. Hardly "smoke" by any stretch of
the imagination.

>> 04 - Phenomena
>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> shortly after the explosion, the flattened buildings with the
>>>>>>>> exception
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> one surviving corner,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The building that fell down were flattened, who would have thought
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A N D? Why didn't the "Surviving Corners" get flattened? I'm just
>>>>>> dying
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> see how you answer that one. <G>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've no answer except to ask why they should get flattened.
>>>>
>>>> They did not get flattened because everything right above the
>>>> "Surviving
>>>> Corners" was turned to dust by a nuclear pulse.
>>>
>>> Please describe a 'nuclear pulse' (this should be interesting)
>>
>> Why don't you just watch a video by a nuclear expert instead? Here is a
>> great one and make sure to start it from the start:
>
> So no answer then, OK.

He describes if very well in the video below and if you are really
interested I can even tell you where in the video he does that. But the
most important thing is just watching the destruction of the Twin Towers you
can see for yourself where they were no longer a strong building anymore but
a pulverized dust pile.

>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>
>>>> And that pulse is unlike a
>>>> blast as you can see by looking close at the destruction of the Twin
>>>> Towers
>>>> and noticing when they were no longer a structure but just a real thick
>>>> dust
>>>> cloud that resembed the building it once was.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So we now have a dust cloud that looks like a building, how quaint.
>>
>> Hey, T-annoy, why don't you just watch the video instead of being an
>> asshole?
>>
>
> You said that the dust looked like a building, see "just a real thick dust
> cloud that resembed the building"

They explained that in the following 4 hour video too and if you are really
interested I can pin point where.

Ok, so you watched the short video. That video didn't convince me either
but it convinced me enough that I watched part of the following video and
when he pinpointed the location of the three nukes just by the "Surviving
Corners" I was convinced.

>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>
>>>>> BTW smoke is small particles.
>>>>
>>>> So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
>>>
>>> No idea, are you trying to twist the thread into one on commodity
>>> prices?
>>
>> Why did you try to change a cloud of debris to smoke?
>>
>>
>
> So the 'smoke' wasn't made up from materials from the WTC, strange.

The original smoke was from preset explosions followed by smoke generators.
But that was dark smoke.

The debris from the towers were not just dust but gas too since some of the
material was pulverized to such an extent it was closer to a gas than
debris.

>>>> Or are you
>>>> goal shifting again?
>>>
>>> Hardly, you used the words 'smoke' & 'particles'.
>>
>> Yes, and where people claim the Towers collapsed they actually turned to
>> dust by a nuclear pulse and you should find both the following
>> interesting:
>>
>> 04 - Phenomena
>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>>
>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>
> See above.

WTF??? Tell me something you saw in the second video because it looks like
you didn't catch any of it.

>>>> Even Ed admits that massive debris cloud floating up up and away was
>>>> pulverized building material but he doesn't want to admit it was also
>>>> pulverized steel.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There you go again, trying to twist peoples posts, you have no idea what
>>> he wants to admit.
>>
>> BULLSHIT Ed has already admitted there was "pulverized concrete" in the
>> dust and now he has added a few other items too.
>>
>
> Your words "but he doesn't want to admit", my post remains.

But still he doesn't call the massive debris cloud smoke. Only you have
been stupid enough to do that.

>> T-annoy you are such a liar and I'll bet you haven't even checked out the
>> following:
>>
>
> See above, BTW prove my lies.

You have forgotten your lie. You claim the Towers were flattened but they
were not flattened because the mini nuke was placed in an area to take down
two buildings and not just the tower so part of the Towers remained
standing.

>> 04 - Phenomena
>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>>
>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>
>>>>>> And you failed to state that the updraft was caused by the heat from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> exact same nuke that created them in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How can I fail to state something of which there is no conclusive
>>>>> proof?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so you think the updraft just happened to be there?
>>>
>>> Updrafts often occur near large buildings
>>
>> Yes, especially if a nuke had just gone off. Duh.
>
> And also if there is no explosion/fire etc.

Oh, and you don't think the mini nuke put that fire out? Oh boy more
T-annoy logic for everbody.

Again:
First Responder - "We Were Nuked on 9-11"
><http://www.henrymakow.com/joey_peeps.html><

>> 04 - Phenomena
>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>>
>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>
>>>> How cute.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>
>> 04 - Phenomena
>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>>
>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>
>>>> Looks
>>>> like you are trying to add more bullshit to official lies because the
>>>> type
>>>> of destruction and the surviving corners proved that there was also a
>>>> lot
>>>> of
>>>> heat from a nuclear event
>>>
>>> So the fires did not get hot, because if they did you would get an
>>> updraft.
>>
>> That carried that much of the Twin Towers away? Oh boy your bullshit is
>> really getting bad. See:
>
> I see now what you are trying to say, If I state a fact that doesn't agree
> with your ideas, it must be bullshit.

I agree there was an updraft just like you stated but I go one step further
and point out it was from the heat of the mini nukes. Here this will help
explain it:

First Responder - "We Were Nuked on 9-11"
><http://www.henrymakow.com/joey_peeps.html><

What the fuck are you trying to say exactly then?

>>>> Man, your stupidity or your outright lies is amazing.
>>>
>>> You should know about both, for myself I prefer logic, science & common
>>> sense.
>>
>> Oh, your changing goalpost again.
>
> So by answering your question I am shifting goalposts, what a quaint idea.

WTF? You took this whole thread on a spin when you tried to say flattened
buildings and now you are trying your best to run from your BIG LIE. The
truth is the buildings were not flattened by falling debris but a mini nuke
that could not flatten the surviving corners.

>> Obviously you don't even want to consider
>> one mini nuke let alone three mini nukes. See:
>>
>> 04 - Phenomena
>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>>
>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>
>
> See above.

And prove you saw something from the above video.

If I want to I could point to the exact areas in the above video that I want
you to see but there are a lot of good parts in it and now you are
pretending to have watched the above 4 hour video when I haven't even done
that. But I've watched from about 2 hours to 2 3/4 hours a few times now.

And if you don't want to watch the video here is something you can read from
a first responder:

First Responder - "We Were Nuked on 9-11"
><http://www.henrymakow.com/joey_peeps.html><

Rocky

[Tony Dragon]

You mean the link that also says :-
"It turns out that no one could fathom that the government would build
an Atom bomb right in downtown Manhattan."

"I saw plane remains so I don't buy the "no plane theory"

More Rooky 'logic'.

>>> Still there were surviving corners and why can't you admit that?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If the pictures show that, why would I not agree.
>
> Then don't give me crap about the towers were flattened because the
> "Surviving Corners" made it easy for people to pin point where the mini
> nukes were placed.
>
> Some people and I don't know if it was everybody were not allowed to take
> photos of Ground Zero. Probably because the photos proved it really was a
> Ground Zero. <G>
>
>

Some people....
Probably.....

>>>>> So the reason the Twin Towers could not fall at free fall is dust does
>>>>> not
>>>>> fall as fast as a solid object and we have just figured out why WTC 7
>>>>> slowed
>>>>> down when most of it was turned into a cloud of dust. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dust is solid just smaller, your point fails
>>>
>>> And your explanition of the Surviving Corners is what?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If the corners did in fact survive, then it was due to the dynamics of the
>> collapse.
>
> ROTFLMAO because now everybody gets to see T-annoy logic in action.
>
> So you are saying the laws of physics changed for 9/11 where falling debis
> doesn't fall on corners of the building. Yep, that's a keeper. NOT.
>
>

I did not say that, you as usual are trying to alter what was posted.

>>>>>>>>> the mushroom cloud
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the
>>>>>>> cloud
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that
>>>>>>> a-bombs
>>>>>>> use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So because smoke appears to expand against the wind, it must be a
>>>>>> mushroom
>>>>>> cloud, how strange.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where is your evidence of "appears" because you can tell the smoke is
>>>>> blowing one way yet the mushroom cloud goes the another.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Learn what the word 'appears' means, clue it has something to do with
>>>> appearance.
>>>
>>> Goal post shift noticed and I'll bet you haven't seen:
>>
>> I'd be interested in how I tried to shift the goalposts, you used the word
>> smoke.
>
> Because we were talking about the debris from the Twin Towers being
> pulverized to the point it floated away. Hardly "smoke" by any stretch of
> the imagination.
>
>

Riiight.....

So it was a gas that wasn't quite a gas, how quaint.

>>>>> Or are you
>>>>> goal shifting again?
>>>>
>>>> Hardly, you used the words 'smoke' & 'particles'.
>>>
>>> Yes, and where people claim the Towers collapsed they actually turned to
>>> dust by a nuclear pulse and you should find both the following
>>> interesting:
>>>
>>> 04 - Phenomena
>>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>>>
>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>>
>> See above.
>
> WTF??? Tell me something you saw in the second video because it looks like
> you didn't catch any of it.
>
>>>>> Even Ed admits that massive debris cloud floating up up and away was
>>>>> pulverized building material but he doesn't want to admit it was also
>>>>> pulverized steel.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There you go again, trying to twist peoples posts, you have no idea what
>>>> he wants to admit.
>>>
>>> BULLSHIT Ed has already admitted there was "pulverized concrete" in the
>>> dust and now he has added a few other items too.
>>>
>>
>> Your words "but he doesn't want to admit", my post remains.
>
> But still he doesn't call the massive debris cloud smoke. Only you have
> been stupid enough to do that.
>

My post remains.

>>> T-annoy you are such a liar and I'll bet you haven't even checked out the
>>> following:
>>>
>>
>> See above, BTW prove my lies.
>
> You have forgotten your lie. You claim the Towers were flattened but they
> were not flattened because the mini nuke was placed in an area to take down
> two buildings and not just the tower so part of the Towers remained
> standing.
>

Riiight, more Rooky 'logic'.

>>> 04 - Phenomena
>>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>>>
>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>>
>>>>>>> And you failed to state that the updraft was caused by the heat from
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> exact same nuke that created them in the first place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can I fail to state something of which there is no conclusive
>>>>>> proof?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, so you think the updraft just happened to be there?
>>>>
>>>> Updrafts often occur near large buildings
>>>
>>> Yes, especially if a nuke had just gone off. Duh.
>>
>> And also if there is no explosion/fire etc.
>
> Oh, and you don't think the mini nuke put that fire out? Oh boy more
> T-annoy logic for everbody.
>

My posts stands even though you try to alter what was said.
Updrafts exist even if there is no explosion/fire.

See above for credibility of this link.

Try to read & understand.

>>>>> Man, your stupidity or your outright lies is amazing.
>>>>
>>>> You should know about both, for myself I prefer logic, science & common
>>>> sense.
>>>
>>> Oh, your changing goalpost again.
>>
>> So by answering your question I am shifting goalposts, what a quaint idea.
>
> WTF? You took this whole thread on a spin when you tried to say flattened
> buildings and now you are trying your best to run from your BIG LIE. The
> truth is the buildings were not flattened by falling debris but a mini nuke
> that could not flatten the surviving corners.
>
>

More Rooky 'logic'

> Rooky
>
>

So now you admit that you have not watched all the video that you are
quoting, how quaint.

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:lsmdnXzpPsPGvirP...@bt.com...

Keep going. He explains that it was just used for holding certain items
used in the bombs.

> "I saw plane remains so I don't buy the "no plane theory"

I saw that statment too but the remains he saw were from a 737 when a 767
was supposed to have hit the towers so explain that?

And I bet you were so interested in finding things wrong with his account
that you overlooked how many boots he melted. Turns out from reading the
rest of your post that is all you were interested in.

Riiight. All you did was prove you did not watch Dimitri Khalezov in the
following video:

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

>>>> Still there were surviving corners and why can't you admit that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the pictures show that, why would I not agree.
>>
>> Then don't give me crap about the towers were flattened because the
>> "Surviving Corners" made it easy for people to pin point where the mini
>> nukes were placed.
>>
>> Some people and I don't know if it was everybody were not allowed to take
>> photos of Ground Zero. Probably because the photos proved it really was
>> a
>> Ground Zero. <G>
>>
>>
>
> Some people....
> Probably.....

Still, try to find photos of the :"Surviving Corners" or photos of the three
exit holes in the Pentagon because certain photos dried up real quick but
they are not completely gone. <G>

>>>>>> So the reason the Twin Towers could not fall at free fall is dust
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> fall as fast as a solid object and we have just figured out why WTC 7
>>>>>> slowed
>>>>>> down when most of it was turned into a cloud of dust. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dust is solid just smaller, your point fails
>>>>
>>>> And your explanition of the Surviving Corners is what?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> If the corners did in fact survive, then it was due to the dynamics of
>>> the
>>> collapse.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO because now everybody gets to see T-annoy logic in action.
>>
>> So you are saying the laws of physics changed for 9/11 where falling
>> debis
>> doesn't fall on corners of the building. Yep, that's a keeper. NOT.
>>
>
> I did not say that, you as usual are trying to alter what was posted.

You started out the with buildings were flattened then you spun the other
way and now you are in a constant state of denial. Good going T-annoy..

>>>>>>>>>> the mushroom cloud
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the
>>>>>>>> cloud
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that
>>>>>>>> a-bombs
>>>>>>>> use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So because smoke appears to expand against the wind, it must be a
>>>>>>> mushroom
>>>>>>> cloud, how strange.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is your evidence of "appears" because you can tell the smoke is
>>>>>> blowing one way yet the mushroom cloud goes the another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Learn what the word 'appears' means, clue it has something to do with
>>>>> appearance.
>>>>
>>>> Goal post shift noticed and I'll bet you haven't seen:
>>>
>>> I'd be interested in how I tried to shift the goalposts, you used the
>>> word
>>> smoke.
>>
>> Because we were talking about the debris from the Twin Towers being
>> pulverized to the point it floated away. Hardly "smoke" by any stretch
>> of
>> the imagination.
>
>
> Riiight.....

So now what are you trying to pull. Are you trying to call the debris smoke
again? Dance, dance dance and you know I'm sick of your dancing around.

Ok, let me put it this way. There is still no valid explanation given for
all the missing steel support columns because they didn't find much trace of
them on the ground or in the dust. But then again, another place points out
the support columns might have been more concrete than steel so that would
explain that there was not as much steel as we were led to believe.

Hey T-annoy look again and see what you are calling smoke you asshole:
><http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><

>>>> T-annoy you are such a liar and I'll bet you haven't even checked out
>>>> the
>>>> following:
>>>>
>>>
>>> See above, BTW prove my lies.
>>
>> You have forgotten your lie. You claim the Towers were flattened but
>> they
>> were not flattened because the mini nuke was placed in an area to take
>> down
>> two buildings and not just the tower so part of the Towers remained
>> standing.
>>
>
> Riiight, more Rooky 'logic'.

LIAR If you had watched the video with Dimitri Khalezov you would know that
came from him you asshole.

>>>> 04 - Phenomena
>>>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>>>>
>>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you failed to state that the updraft was caused by the heat
>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> exact same nuke that created them in the first place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How can I fail to state something of which there is no conclusive
>>>>>>> proof?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, so you think the updraft just happened to be there?
>>>>>
>>>>> Updrafts often occur near large buildings
>>>>
>>>> Yes, especially if a nuke had just gone off. Duh.
>>>
>>> And also if there is no explosion/fire etc.
>>
>> Oh, and you don't think the mini nuke put that fire out? Oh boy more
>> T-annoy logic for everbody.
>>
>
> My posts stands even though you try to alter what was said.
> Updrafts exist even if there is no explosion/fire.

You spin and spin and spin and spin and your explaination for the surviving
corners is pure bullshit. And your explaination for the massive debris
cloud in the following photo is also total bullshit.
><http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><

You took his statements out of context because he didn't say they were built
in Manhattan but he pointed out some things were stored in Manhattan.

Read what? You lied about the Surviving Corners and you have lied about the
masive debris cloud in the following:
><http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><

T-annoy you are just an asshole because anybody with half a brain can not
call that smoke so you must have less than half a brain.

>>>>>> Man, your stupidity or your outright lies is amazing.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should know about both, for myself I prefer logic, science &
>>>>> common
>>>>> sense.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, your changing goalpost again.
>>>
>>> So by answering your question I am shifting goalposts, what a quaint
>>> idea.
>>
>> WTF? You took this whole thread on a spin when you tried to say
>> flattened
>> buildings and now you are trying your best to run from your BIG LIE. The
>> truth is the buildings were not flattened by falling debris but a mini
>> nuke
>> that could not flatten the surviving corners.
>>
>
> More Rooky 'logic'

T-annoy you are living up to your name. Your excuse for the "Surviving
Corners" was bullshit to start with and now you are just bullshit on top of
bullshit on top of bullshit.

T-annoy you have turned into a fcuknig spinner. Better just start all over
and try to explain the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers and the
massive debris cloud floating away from three mini nukes in the following:
><http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><

Rocky

[george152]

Floated away?
Really?
Hundreds of thousands of pounds of broken building floated away?
For weeks and unnoticed by the cleanup crews ??????????????????

[george152]

On 22/12/13 22:37, Tony Dragon wrote:

> Rooky now proves that he does not understand the English language.

Or logic or science or gravity or nukes.
But then he's stalking girls, a certified mental patient and a lousy
sacked truck driver

[george152]

On 22/12/13 23:59, Tony Dragon wrote:
.
>
> Yes, if there were 'surviving corners' then they would be still standing.
>

There were pieces of curtain walling in the wreckage. These are the
external skin of the building and are where the windows are installed.
That's what he's on about

[Ernest Primeau]

I can surely believe that nukes were used to make people bald. Ernie

[Rocky]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

news:YsadnUuvcd4bqCrP...@giganews.com...

LIAR because one of the first things noticed by everybody was an incredibly
small amount of debris on the ground from two 110 story buildings.

And again, try to find photos of the Twin Towers that were taken on the 11th
or the 12th because they are the best evidence of a mini nuke or three. <G>

Still the surviving corners of the Twin Towers and the building just north
of WTC 7 prove 3 mini nukes were used at what was correctly called "Ground
Zero" by the pre 911 definition of Ground Zero too. <G>

Rocky

[Rocky]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

news:YsadnUqvcd6yqyrP...@giganews.com...

> On 22/12/13 22:37, Tony Dragon wrote:

More tag team trolls where Tony call the massive debris cloud leaving the
World Trade Center "smoke" and then T-annoy can't explain the surviving
corners of WTC 1, WTC 2 or the building just north of WTC 7.

Then ggoree kisses T-annoy's ass.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

news:uPidnQqZXOFwqyrP...@giganews.com...

Thanks and the "Surviving Corner" of the North Tower also included 6 floors
of stairwell B where the rumor is 14 people survived.

How they survived is explained by the fact the part of the building right
above them was destroyed by a nuclear pulse and a nuclear pulse is unlike an
explosion because all it did was unbind some of the molecules and not blow
them apart.

And if you watch the demolition of the Towers close you can see at one point
the Twin Towers are not a normal building at all but just ultra fine debris
ready to float away with a strong wing which they would end up doing.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Ernest Primeau" <Erni...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:l97dhn$qd$1...@dont-email.me...

>I can surely believe that nukes were used to make people bald. Ernie

LOL but it was bald and dead and it is hard to say which one came first.

Hey, I thought webtv was a thing of the past so how did you keep a webtv
e-mail address?

Rocky

[Tony Dragon]

Once again Rooky twists what has been posted.
But just to help, there was smoke leaving the WTC.
And just to repeat the dynamics of the collapsing buildings caused how
the remains looked.

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:SbWdnZ5G1LfB0irP...@bt.com...

ROTFLMAO because how can the fact 6 floors of stairwell B survived in the
North Tower be considered "dynamics?" Was there no falling debris above
them?

T-annoy, you are a liar and you are pretty apt to stay that way and your
lies have been used to cover up how Stairwell B of the North Tower survived
and the fact debris from buildings pulverized by nukes floated away in the
heat from those nukes in the following:
><http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><

Certainly the heat from a nuke could get a lot of ultra fine debris off the
ground and it had enough heat to get one shill in a hot air balloon off the
ground too. <G>

Rocky

[Tony Dragon]

Everybody............

>
> And again, try to find photos of the Twin Towers that were taken on the 11th
> or the 12th because they are the best evidence of a mini nuke or three. <G>
>

try to find............

> Still the surviving corners of the Twin Towers and the building just north
> of WTC 7 prove 3 mini nukes were used at what was correctly called "Ground
> Zero" by the pre 911 definition of Ground Zero too. <G>
>

> Rooky
>
>

More Rooky 'logic'.

[Tony Dragon]

Yes, it's a real bitch when somebody points out the defects in your post.

Ahh, so now it's 'another place'

Tut, tut, you must stop calling people names just because you don't
understand things.

>>>>> T-annoy you are such a liar and I'll bet you haven't even checked out
>>>>> the
>>>>> following:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See above, BTW prove my lies.
>>>
>>> You have forgotten your lie. You claim the Towers were flattened but
>>> they
>>> were not flattened because the mini nuke was placed in an area to take
>>> down
>>> two buildings and not just the tower so part of the Towers remained
>>> standing.
>>>
>>
>> Riiight, more Rooky 'logic'.
>
> LIAR If you had watched the video with Dimitri Khalezov you would know that
> came from him you asshole.
>
>

So your 'logic' is copied from somebody else.

>>>>> 04 - Phenomena
>>>>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>>>>>
>>>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you failed to state that the updraft was caused by the heat
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> exact same nuke that created them in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How can I fail to state something of which there is no conclusive
>>>>>>>> proof?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, so you think the updraft just happened to be there?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Updrafts often occur near large buildings
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, especially if a nuke had just gone off. Duh.
>>>>
>>>> And also if there is no explosion/fire etc.
>>>
>>> Oh, and you don't think the mini nuke put that fire out? Oh boy more
>>> T-annoy logic for everbody.
>>>
>>
>> My posts stands even though you try to alter what was said.
>> Updrafts exist even if there is no explosion/fire.
>
> You spin and spin and spin and spin and your explaination for the surviving
> corners is pure bullshit.

Are you saying that updrafts do not exist near high buildings?

> And your explaination for the massive debris
> cloud in the following photo is also total bullshit.
>> <http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><
>
>

What explanation would that be?

I just quoted the words.

You do know what a lie is don't you?

>> <http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><
>
> T-annoy you are just an asshole because anybody with half a brain can not
> call that smoke so you must have less than half a brain.
>

Riiight, so the fires did not produce smoke.

>>>>>>> Man, your stupidity or your outright lies is amazing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should know about both, for myself I prefer logic, science &
>>>>>> common
>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, your changing goalpost again.
>>>>
>>>> So by answering your question I am shifting goalposts, what a quaint
>>>> idea.
>>>
>>> WTF? You took this whole thread on a spin when you tried to say
>>> flattened
>>> buildings and now you are trying your best to run from your BIG LIE. The
>>> truth is the buildings were not flattened by falling debris but a mini
>>> nuke
>>> that could not flatten the surviving corners.
>>>
>>
>> More Rooky 'logic'
>
> T-annoy you are living up to your name. Your excuse for the "Surviving
> Corners" was bullshit to start with and now you are just bullshit on top of
> bullshit on top of bullshit.
>
>

You seem to understand 'bullshit', in fact it seems you are an expert.

Your words "But I've watched from about 2 hours to 2 3/4 hours"


> Rooky
>
>

[Tony Dragon]

On 22/12/2013 21:11, Rocky wrote:
>
> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:SbWdnZ5G1LfB0irP...@bt.com...
>> On 22/12/2013 19:30, Rocky wrote:
>>>
>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>> news:YsadnUqvcd6yqyrP...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 22/12/13 22:37, Tony Dragon wrote:
>>>
>>> More tag team trolls where Tony call the massive debris cloud leaving the
>>> World Trade Center "smoke" and then T-annoy can't explain the surviving
>>> corners of WTC 1, WTC 2 or the building just north of WTC 7.
>>>
>>> Then ggoree kisses T-annoy's ass.
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> Once again Rooky twists what has been posted.
>> But just to help, there was smoke leaving the WTC.
>> And just to repeat the dynamics of the collapsing buildings caused how the
>> remains looked.
>
> ROTFLMAO because how can the fact 6 floors of stairwell B survived in the
> North Tower be considered "dynamics?" Was there no falling debris above
> them?
>

Please look up the word dynamics.

> T-annoy, you are a liar and you are pretty apt to stay that way and your
> lies have been used to cover up how Stairwell B of the North Tower survived

My lies have been used to cover up something, how quaint.

> and the fact debris from buildings pulverized by nukes floated away in the
> heat from those nukes in the following:
>> <http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><
>
> Certainly the heat from a nuke could get a lot of ultra fine debris off the
> ground and it had enough heat to get one shill in a hot air balloon off the
> ground too. <G>
>

> Rooky
>
>

Using a nuke to heat the air in a hot air balloon, what a quaint idea.

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:zK6dndHN_6UxxCrP...@bt.com...

Everybody that saw the remains of the Twin Towers first hand. <G>

>> And again, try to find photos of the Twin Towers that were taken on the
>> 11th
>> or the 12th because they are the best evidence of a mini nuke or three.
>> <G>
>>
>
> try to find............
>
>> Still the surviving corners of the Twin Towers and the building just
>> north
>> of WTC 7 prove 3 mini nukes were used at what was correctly called
>> "Ground
>> Zero" by the pre 911 definition of Ground Zero too. <G>
>>
>> Rooky
>>
>
> More Rooky 'logic'.

T-annoy you had better prove you even know what the "Surviving Corners"
consisted of before you make misleading remarks about them.

To me this is not a matter of idea vs idea but the facts have been right in
front of your eyes all the time and all you had to do was look.
http://911thology.com/

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:w5idnTN3wPKtwCrP...@bt.com...

ROTFLMAO because all you have done is claim the massive debris cloud
floating away from the twin towers (link follows) was just smoke.
><http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><

And you claim that the reason 6 floors of stairwell B in the north tower
survived is it was "dynamic."

T-annoy, you are such an obvious liar or are you a shill? Which one is it?

Look at you. You still can't explain why 6 floors of stairwell B in the
North Tower survived so you have no right to put anyone else down. <G>

So you are still calling all the debris floating away from the Twin Towers
smoke? So now explain why nothing landed on the 6 surviving floors of
stairwell B. <G>

>>>>>> T-annoy you are such a liar and I'll bet you haven't even checked out
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> See above, BTW prove my lies.
>>>>
>>>> You have forgotten your lie. You claim the Towers were flattened but
>>>> they
>>>> were not flattened because the mini nuke was placed in an area to take
>>>> down
>>>> two buildings and not just the tower so part of the Towers remained
>>>> standing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Riiight, more Rooky 'logic'.
>>
>> LIAR If you had watched the video with Dimitri Khalezov you would know
>> that
>> came from him you asshole.
>>
>
> So your 'logic' is copied from somebody else.

T-annoy what are you doing now? Are you trying to tell me I'm not allowed
to agree with a nuclear explosives expert? If you are then you are an
asshole too.

>>>>>> 04 - Phenomena
>>>>>> http://youtu.be/a3nwzX0A2GU
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you failed to state that the updraft was caused by the heat
>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> exact same nuke that created them in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How can I fail to state something of which there is no conclusive
>>>>>>>>> proof?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh, so you think the updraft just happened to be there?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Updrafts often occur near large buildings
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, especially if a nuke had just gone off. Duh.
>>>>>
>>>>> And also if there is no explosion/fire etc.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and you don't think the mini nuke put that fire out? Oh boy more
>>>> T-annoy logic for everbody.
>>>>
>>>
>>> My posts stands even though you try to alter what was said.
>>> Updrafts exist even if there is no explosion/fire.
>>
>> You spin and spin and spin and spin and your explaination for the
>> surviving
>> corners is pure bullshit.
>
> Are you saying that updrafts do not exist near high buildings?

What tall buildings? Don't forget the Twin Towers had just suffered the
fate of two mini nukes. And if you ever looked into sailplanes there are
certain areas where natural updrafts do occur. What caused the debris to
rise was the heat from three mini nukes.

>> And your explaination for the massive debris
>> cloud in the following photo is also total bullshit.
>>> <http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><
>>
>
> What explanation would that be?

You keep calling it smoke you asshole because it was also ultra fine debris
from the World Trade Center.

But you still took them out of context because you didn't quote enough of
them. Duh.

Ok, so tell me what you know about the "Surviving Corners" then. Because at
this point you have just lied about them.

>>> <http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><
>>
>> T-annoy you are just an asshole because anybody with half a brain can not
>> call that smoke so you must have less than half a brain.
>>
>
> Riiight, so the fires did not produce smoke.

That much smoke? (photo in the above link) T-annoy you are a fckunig liar
because nothing produces that much smoke without a lot of power.

What you see is debris floating away after 3 mini nukes were used and the
ultra fine debris went airborne on the heat from the same mini nukes that
made them ultra fine debris to start with.

>>>>>>>> Man, your stupidity or your outright lies is amazing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should know about both, for myself I prefer logic, science &
>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, your changing goalpost again.
>>>>>
>>>>> So by answering your question I am shifting goalposts, what a quaint
>>>>> idea.
>>>>
>>>> WTF? You took this whole thread on a spin when you tried to say
>>>> flattened
>>>> buildings and now you are trying your best to run from your BIG LIE.
>>>> The
>>>> truth is the buildings were not flattened by falling debris but a mini
>>>> nuke
>>>> that could not flatten the surviving corners.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More Rooky 'logic'
>>
>> T-annoy you are living up to your name. Your excuse for the "Surviving
>> Corners" was bullshit to start with and now you are just bullshit on top
>> of
>> bullshit on top of bullshit.
>>
>>
>
> You seem to understand 'bullshit', in fact it seems you are an expert.

T-annoy you are moving goalpost again because if you had any support for
your complete bullshit about the "Surviving Corners" you could post it. <G>

So? What convinced me that the World Trade Center was nuked was at 2:27:40
into the following video.

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:tP2dneD4XsnowyrP...@bt.com...

> On 22/12/2013 21:11, Rocky wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:SbWdnZ5G1LfB0irP...@bt.com...
>>> On 22/12/2013 19:30, Rocky wrote:
>>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:YsadnUqvcd6yqyrP...@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 22/12/13 22:37, Tony Dragon wrote:
>>>>
>>>> More tag team trolls where Tony call the massive debris cloud leaving
>>>> the
>>>> World Trade Center "smoke" and then T-annoy can't explain the surviving
>>>> corners of WTC 1, WTC 2 or the building just north of WTC 7.
>>>>
>>>> Then ggoree kisses T-annoy's ass.
>>>>
>>>> Rocky
>>>
>>> Once again Rooky twists what has been posted.
>>> But just to help, there was smoke leaving the WTC.
>>> And just to repeat the dynamics of the collapsing buildings caused how
>>> the
>>> remains looked.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO because how can the fact 6 floors of stairwell B survived in the
>> North Tower be considered "dynamics?" Was there no falling debris above
>> them?
>>
>
> Please look up the word dynamics.

But it isn't just the stairwell that survived because it is also the
remaining wall on the far side of the stairwell so how can you call both of
those dynamic? And how can you explain that there was also one surviving
wall of WTC 2 also? T-annoy you are a fckunig idiot and you are pretty apt
to stay that way.

But mini nukes can easily explain the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers
and why so much debris floated away too. <G>

>> T-annoy, you are a liar and you are pretty apt to stay that way and your
>> lies have been used to cover up how Stairwell B of the North Tower
>> survived
>
> My lies have been used to cover up something, how quaint.

Exactly. Now you are getting the point. You are either a liar, an idiot or
a shill. Which one is it?

>> and the fact debris from buildings pulverized by nukes floated away in
>> the
>> heat from those nukes in the following:
>>> <http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><
>>
>> Certainly the heat from a nuke could get a lot of ultra fine debris off
>> the
>> ground and it had enough heat to get one shill in a hot air balloon off
>> the
>> ground too. <G>
>>
>> Rooky
>>
>
> Using a nuke to heat the air in a hot air balloon, what a quaint idea.

So now you are poking fun at the massive debris cloud in the
following?><http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><

At least when I made a remark about the heat from the three mini nukes I
gave two options and one of them was the truth. <G>

Rocky

[Government Shill #2]

On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 07:27:15 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

>Oh, your changing goalpost again. Obviously you don't even want to consider
>one mini nuke let alone three mini nukes. See:

You should consider the effect of one 150kt "mini nuke" and then reconsider your
fucking nonsense about any mini nukes.

This is footage of a 20kt detonation:
http://youtu.be/EniBqALyAEA?t=20s

This is a 31kt detonation:
http://youtu.be/11e8XyUBqRQ

This last one is still 5 times *smaller* than one of your mini nukes.

And I don't buy your bullshit that burying the bombs 50 metres down makes any
difference.

On that note, this document discusses the rock formations under the WTC site.
You might like to read it and discover that it is not solid granite, as you seem
to "think":
http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferences/abstracts-08/moss.pdf

Oh... and you claim that the Hiroshima 15kt bomb was detonated at an altitude of
3 miles was a lie too. It detonated at 0.35 miles (1,900 feet). Look it up.

Shill #2
--

If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the cloud of smoke
expands against the wind using the exact same principle that a-bombs use.

Roger Wittekind (Rocky) - alt.conspiracy 21 Dec 2013

[Government Shill #2]

The complete switch from the bullshit that he espoused for years to this
complete bullshit is just a tad too amazing to be believed as well.

Shill #2
--

If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the cloud of smoke
expands against the wind using the exact same principle that a-bombs use.

[george152]

On 23/12/13 12:44, Government Shill #2 wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 07:27:15 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh, your changing goalpost again. Obviously you don't even want to consider
>> one mini nuke let alone three mini nukes. See:
>
> You should consider the effect of one 150kt "mini nuke" and then reconsider your
> fucking nonsense about any mini nukes.
>
> This is footage of a 20kt detonation:
> http://youtu.be/EniBqALyAEA?t=20s
>
> This is a 31kt detonation:
> http://youtu.be/11e8XyUBqRQ
>
> This last one is still 5 times *smaller* than one of your mini nukes.
>
> And I don't buy your bullshit that burying the bombs 50 metres down makes any
> difference.

It doesn't.
In fact around the deepest they fired an underground nuke was around 600
feet and radiation still escaped and the ground slumped.
And produced the unique seismic signal
Where did it get the idea that 150 was a 'mini'?
And 3 of them.
Looks like that mental disease is worsening

[Rocky]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:toteb9dur26pmo2if...@4ax.com...

I thought I heard that in a movie about the B29 that dropped the atom bomb
so it could have been the same type of movie magic that was used to tell the
official 9/11 fairytale.

It looks like the movie I saw was called "Above and Beyond" but I can't find
a place to watch it online for free.
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Above_and_Beyond_%28film%29><

But still a mini nuke is the only thing that explains why Judy Woods thought
it was a DEW, gave the wrong description for how a mini nuke works, never
mentioned how much heat was at the Ground Zero, could never place the exact
location that the DEW was supposed to be shot from and was questionable in a
few other areas like why so much debris floated up.

BTW I just noticed that Judy Wood showed the damage to Fiterman Hall but her
main graphic does not show the surviving corners to WTC 1 or WTC 2.

Still the best thing I've seen so far that fits all the facts is: Dimitri

Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

> Shill #2

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7iveb99ak93mfkse5...@4ax.com...

>
> The complete switch from the bullshit that he espoused for years to this
> complete bullshit is just a tad too amazing to be believed as well.

Because I found something that explains the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin
Towers, why the building north of WTC 7 was heavily damaged, all the heat
and why they called Ground Zero ground zero you have to act like BKD?

If you were really smart you would try to find some other explanation for
the "Surviving Corners", all the heat and the massive debris cloud that was
lifted into the air by all the heat from 3 mini nukes.

So far the best I have is in the following and it shows it took me 12 years
before I even suspected a mini nuke was used let alone three of them:

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition
[Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

Rocky

[Rocky]

"joeturn" <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:60a89cf6-0632-4836...@googlegroups.com...
>
> There were No Planes,There were No Nuclear Bombs only a controlled
> demolition on 911

I've been looking for the information in the link at the end of this post
all day and at one time it was posted to wikipedia before they removed it
for obvious reasons.

I know you have mentioned "Controlled Demolition Inc." before so I suspect
you will get a kick out of the following statement:

"Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers was patented by " Controlled Demolition
Inc." - the most renowned demolition company that deals with controlled
demolition of buildings, and especially with controlled demolition of
skyscrapers. The same company was a primary designer of nuclear demolition
projects of the World Trade Center in New York and of the Sears Tower in
Chicago."

Above quote from: http://www.nuclear-demolition.com

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7iveb99ak93mfkse5...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:44:51 -0500, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <p76cb91numvknrlen...@4ax.com>,
>>gov....@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:30:35 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:Ko2dnUTJmvUjZijP...@bt.com...
>>> >> On 21/12/2013 18:33, Rocky wrote:
>>>
>>> >>> the mushroom cloud
>>> >>
>>> >> Well it was not exactly a 'mushroom cloud'.
>>> >
>>> >If you watch the North Tower after it got nuked you will see the cloud
>>> >of
>>> >smoke expands against the wind using the exact same principle that
>>> >a-bombs
>>> >use.
>>>
>>> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>>>
>>> "...the exact same principle that a-bombs use."
>>>
>>> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>>>
>>> Shill #2
>>
>>How can anyone believe he's not a troll? It's too stupid.
>
> The complete switch from the bullshit that he espoused for years to this
> complete bullshit is just a tad too amazing to be believed as well.

Is that the best you can do? Me? I even have a wikipedia article to help
you learn about things that you do not know. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition

Rocky

[Government Shill #2]

That is *not* a Wikipedia article. That is a Wikipedia *User Page*.

Wikipedia says:
" User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and
drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal
content."

It was written by some person named Smallman12q. I have no reason to believe
Smallman12q is any smarter, or saner, than you.

Shill #2
--
"stonium barium niabate... is actually a bunch of crystals
that are perfect 3D holograms."
Roger Wittekind (Rocky) - alt.conspiracy 28 Sep 2013

[Government Shill #2]

The bomb may have been *dropped* from 3 miles (15,800 feet). It didn't detonate
at 3 miles. You should check your facts before you post rubbish.

You're just going to ignore the other points raised and hope they go away?

Shill #2
--
Thermate is the military grade of thermite. It has stuff added to it that
lowers the temperature that iron will melt at...
Roger Wittekind (Rocky) alt.conspiracy 30 Oct 11

[Rocky]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:fqkfb9ho47gqstk5g...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 23:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:7iveb99ak93mfkse5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:44:51 -0500, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com>
>>> wrote:
>
>>>>How can anyone believe he's not a troll? It's too stupid.
>>>
>>> The complete switch from the bullshit that he espoused for years to this
>>> complete bullshit is just a tad too amazing to be believed as well.
>>
>>
>>Is that the best you can do? Me? I even have a wikipedia article to help
>>you learn about things that you do not know. See:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition
>
>
> That is *not* a Wikipedia article. That is a Wikipedia *User Page*.
>
> Wikipedia says:
> " User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and
> drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and
> personal
> content."
>
> It was written by some person named Smallman12q. I have no reason to
> believe
> Smallman12q is any smarter, or saner, than you.

At one time it was a normal Wikipedia page but you can see for yourself why
certain people in our government wanted it removed. <G> Or see:
http://www.nuclear-demolition.com

Plus all that wikipedia page really does it places the testimony of Dimitri
Khalezov that is also contained in the following video onto a wikipedia
page.

Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition [Complete / Full Length]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I

And you can download Dimitri Khalezov's book from a few different places and
that wikipedia page above is part of what people requested him to write up
so he did and people made copies of it as the above wikipedia page proves.

BTW Dimitri Khalezov also has a few good pages on Veterans today: See:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center-damage-to-bathtub

[Rocky]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:5dlfb9h4hh0m2pojv...@4ax.com...

OMG and what about your Official Fairytale facts?

Still there is nothing that explains the surviving corners of several
buildings, the enormous debris cloud, the molten metal and the reason why
Ground Zero is called ground zero better than a mini nuke or three.

> You're just going to ignore the other points raised and hope they go away?

What are you talking about? From what I've seen Dimitri Khalezoz has faced
all the naysayers.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/

[Dean Markley]

You're special, aren't you? As in education?

[Rocky]

"Dean Markley" <dama...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:946fb2b5-49b9-47be...@googlegroups.com...

Daen, if that is the best you can do at explaining the "Surviving Corners"
to the Twin Towers and why the building north of WTC 7 was also damaged you
need a lot of help.

I know it will be hard to take at first but the only thing that explains the
debris cloud the stretched for miles, the Surviving Corners to the Twin
Towers, all the heat that lasted for months and why ground zero was called
ground zero by the pre-911 definition of ground zero is not just one mini
nuke was used but three mini nukes were used.

See:
http://www.nuclear-demolition.com

and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition

[Dean Markley]

Does your mother know you are using the computer?

[george152]

On 23/12/13 16:50, Rocky wrote:

> Because I found something that explains the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin
> Towers, why the building north of WTC 7 was heavily damaged, all the heat
> and why they called Ground Zero ground zero you have to act like BKD?
>
> If you were really smart you would try to find some other explanation for
> the "Surviving Corners", all the heat and the massive debris cloud that was
> lifted into the air by all the heat from 3 mini nukes.
>
> So far the best I have is in the following and it shows it took me 12 years
> before I even suspected a mini nuke was used let alone three of them:
>
> Dimitri Khalezov - WTC Nuclear Demolition
> [Complete / Full Length]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lec9giab90I
>

Has to be the craziest post subject of all time

[george152]

Who have nothing to do with the demolition firm (Controlled Demolition
Inc) they incorrectly 'quote'

[Rocky]

"Dean Markley" <dama...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e96d771d-3f38-4b5f...@googlegroups.com...

Daen, just because you have to get permission from your mother to use her
computer doesn't mean I'm in the same boat.

If you really had something you would have an explanation for the "Surviving
Corners" of the Twin Towers, the damage done to Fiterman hall and the
enormous debris cloud that covered a lot of New York City until the heat
from three mini nukes at Ground Zero airlifted the ultra fine debris to get
it off the ground.

Rocky

[george152]

On 23/12/13 19:17, Government Shill #2 wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 23:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7iveb99ak93mfkse5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:44:51 -0500, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com> wrote:
>
>>>> How can anyone believe he's not a troll? It's too stupid.
>>>
>>> The complete switch from the bullshit that he espoused for years to this
>>> complete bullshit is just a tad too amazing to be believed as well.
>>
>>
>> Is that the best you can do? Me? I even have a wikipedia article to help
>> you learn about things that you do not know. See:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition
>
>
> That is *not* a Wikipedia article. That is a Wikipedia *User Page*.
>
> Wikipedia says:
> " User pages mainly are for interpersonal discussion, notices, testing and
> drafts (see: Sandboxes), and, if desired, limited autobiographical and personal
> content."
>
> It was written by some person named Smallman12q. I have no reason to believe
> Smallman12q is any smarter, or saner, than you.

5 bob says rolloverrocky is Smallman12q

[Rocky]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

news:ybCdnVumkaKfFCXP...@giganews.com...

Yes your post is crazy because you can't address a single issue that mini
nukes at Ground Zero can address. <G>

Rocky

[Rocky]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

news:TfidnSq_mqzOFyXP...@giganews.com...

How can you say if CDI has a patent on nuclear demolitions or not because
that would be one of the first things that the government would not allow on
the Internet. Duh.

Still you have no explanation for the "Surviving Corners" or Fiterman Hall
or the massive debris cloud that floated up up and away but three mini nukes
easily explain all three of those issues. <G>

Rocky

[Rocky]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

news:TfidnSW_mqwwFyXP...@giganews.com...

Once more you prove you are a complete Idi0t because the above page also
says: "This page was last modified on 1 March 2009 at 18:39." and I never
even suspected mini nukes were used in New York City until shortly before
the following post on December 18, 2013:

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: After Jews hijack your government, NOTHING will remain
unconstitutional
<SNIP>
>
> While I do not support the theory that mini nukes were used to bring down
> the Twin Towers I have my doubts on what was used to destroy the
> basements. See:
>
> 04 - Phenomena
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3nwzX0A2GU

Yep the above video cast a doubt on how the Twin Towers were destroyed but
Dimitri Khalezov confirmed the bottom part of the Towers were nuked.

Rocky

[george152]

On 24/12/13 08:13, Rocky wrote:

>
> Yes your post is crazy because you can't address a single issue that mini
> nukes at Ground Zero can address. <G>
>

120 kt devices are NOT mini anything.
If you want to look a little less like a brainless moron use Google and
come up with pages like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
before you nut off again

[Rocky]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

news:7oidnX4Dd9MsACXP...@giganews.com...

Knock, knock ggoree. Why are you bitching to me? My name is not Dimitri
Khalzov you idiot.

If you start with the evidence of:
1. Surviving Corners and more of both WTC 1 and WTC 2.
2. The damage done to Fiterman Hall.
3. The super massive debris cloud
4. The name Ground Zero

and add http://www.nuclear-demolition.com that is all I need to say three
mini nukes because I can rely on the testimony of Dimitri Khalezov to say
the rest.

Rocky

[Tony Dragon]

You forgot to learn what dynamics (of a building collapse) means.
Until you understand what people post, it is you who is the idiot.

> But mini nukes can easily explain the "Surviving Corners" of the Twin Towers
> and why so much debris floated away too. <G>
>

Please give examples where 'mini nukes' were used to demolish a
building, and I mean actual examples.

>>> T-annoy, you are a liar and you are pretty apt to stay that way and your
>>> lies have been used to cover up how Stairwell B of the North Tower
>>> survived
>>
>> My lies have been used to cover up something, how quaint.
>
> Exactly. Now you are getting the point. You are either a liar, an idiot or
> a shill. Which one is it?
>
>

I haven't lied, so I can't be a liar.
I understand a whole lot more than you have demonstrated that you
understand, so I can't be an idiot.
If I am a shill (which I am not), who am I a shill for?

>>> and the fact debris from buildings pulverized by nukes floated away in
>>> the
>>> heat from those nukes in the following:
>>>> <http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><
>>>
>>> Certainly the heat from a nuke could get a lot of ultra fine debris off
>>> the
>>> ground and it had enough heat to get one shill in a hot air balloon off
>>> the
>>> ground too. <G>
>>>
>>> Rooky
>>>
>>
>> Using a nuke to heat the air in a hot air balloon, what a quaint idea.
>
> So now you are poking fun at the massive debris cloud in the
> following?><http://smg.photobucket.com/user/youricarma/media/NineOneOne/GJS-WTC46.jpg.html><
>

No, I am poking fun at you, with your quaint posts.

> At least when I made a remark about the heat from the three mini nukes I
> gave two options and one of them was the truth. <G>
>

> Rooky
>
>

Which option was that, after you post the answer, produce your evidence
(without referring to another URL)

[Tony Dragon]

But you have access, how quaint an idea.

>
> Still you have no explanation for the "Surviving Corners" or Fiterman Hall
> or the massive debris cloud that floated up up and away but three mini nukes
> easily explain all three of those issues. <G>
>

> Rooky
>
>

Learn how a building falls or fails to fall.

[Tony Dragon]

On 22/12/2013 21:53, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

> news:zK6dndHN_6UxxCrP...@bt.com...

>> On 22/12/2013 19:27, Rocky wrote:
>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

>>> news:YsadnUuvcd4bqCrP...@giganews.com...

>>>> On 22/12/13 16:47, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message

>>>>> news:fNednYgEFp9yxSvP...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> On 22/12/13 12:55, Government Shill #2 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:25:50 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You obviously didn't read a book by an expert on what happens to
>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>> within 400 meters of a 150 kt mini nuke or you would know it removes
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> bond between molecules without ripping them apart at the same time.
>>>>>>>> Meaning
>>>>>>>> the Twin Towers could have appeared to be solid but in real life
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> just dust.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow! That is *the* most fucked up thing ever posted on any newsgroup,
>>>>>>> ever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think Freedo is absolutely right. Rockhead is a government agent,
>>>>>>> tasked to
>>>>>>> post here to make truthers look like a pack of idiots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the hardest task in the world.
>>>>>> We DO know what happens to any-one or thing within 400 meters of a
>>>>>> nuke.
>>>>>> And those claims are not correct. Laughable but not correct
>>>>>
>>>>> And your explanation for the massive debris cloud that floated away
>>>>> from
>>>>> the
>>>>> World Trade Center for weeks was what? Jet Fuel? Now that is
>>>>> ludicrous.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Floated away?
>>>> Really?
>>>> Hundreds of thousands of pounds of broken building floated away?
>>>> For weeks and unnoticed by the cleanup crews ??????????????????
>>>
>>> LIAR because one of the first things noticed by everybody was an
>>> incredibly
>>> small amount of debris on the ground from two 110 story buildings.
>>
>> Everybody............
>
> Everybody that saw the remains of the Twin Towers first hand. <G>
>
>

So you mean that everybody who saw the remains of wtc agrees with you,
how quaint.

>>> And again, try to find photos of the Twin Towers that were taken on the
>>> 11th
>>> or the 12th because they are the best evidence of a mini nuke or three.
>>> <G>
>>>
>>
>> try to find............
>>
>>> Still the surviving corners of the Twin Towers and the building just
>>> north
>>> of WTC 7 prove 3 mini nukes were used at what was correctly called
>>> "Ground
>>> Zero" by the pre 911 definition of Ground Zero too. <G>
>>>
>>> Rooky
>>>
>>
>> More Rooky 'logic'.
>
> T-annoy you had better prove you even know what the "Surviving Corners"
> consisted of before you make misleading remarks about them.
>

Well if they exist the way you say, then they would consist of part of
the WTC, what else?

> To me this is not a matter of idea vs idea but the facts have been right in
> front of your eyes all the time and all you had to do was look.
> http://911thology.com/
>
> Rooky
>
>

And everybody who has looked has not seen the same as you, what a quaint
idea.

[Tony Dragon]

> Rooky
>
>

What does it feel like to be the only person in step?

[Tony Dragon]

What type of nuke were these?
What was there yield?
What is the physical size of them?
How were they placed?
What weight were they?
What was the radiation level after they went off (you can chose the units)?

[Tony Dragon]

It's never stopped him in the past, just look at all of his posts about
holograms.

[Government Shill #2]

So... there is exactly *one* person who has evidence of nuclear demolition of
the WTC buildings? One. Dimitri Khalezov.

Every link you provide is just another site/video quoting the same guy. And you
think we should take him, and you, seriously?

Shill #2
--
http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq341/govshill/Rockhead.jpg

[Government Shill #2]

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:00:13 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

>
>"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>news:7oidnX4Dd9MsACXP...@giganews.com...
>> On 24/12/13 08:13, Rocky wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes your post is crazy because you can't address a single issue that mini
>>> nukes at Ground Zero can address. <G>
>>>
>> 120 kt devices are NOT mini anything.
>> If you want to look a little less like a brainless moron use Google and
>> come up with pages like
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
>
>Knock, knock ggoree. Why are you bitching to me? My name is not Dimitri
>Khalzov you idiot.
>
>If you start with the evidence of:
>1. Surviving Corners and more of both WTC 1 and WTC 2.
>2. The damage done to Fiterman Hall.
>3. The super massive debris cloud
>4. The name Ground Zero

5. No fuckin' great hole left behind three 150kt explosions
6. No radioactive fallout detected anywhere, by anyone
7. No sign of three extremely hot fireballs
8. No seismic evidence, which normally would float your boat
9. No nothing


>and add http://www.nuclear-demolition.com

nuclear-demolition.com is no more credible than any other 911 kOOksite you have
ever directed anyone to. According to the contact page it was created by
des...@3truth911.com. No bias there (that was sarcasm). A link to
www.3truth911.com on the same contacts page leads to a Go Daddy page that says
that www.3truth911.com expired on 26/11/2013 and is pending renewal or deletion.

All your facts are bullshit.

Shill #2
--
All we have to do his is prove it was possible for WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 to
have all come down via Controlled Demolitions.
In other words we do not have to prove how it was done but only that it was
possible.
Roger Wittekind (Rocky) - alt.conspiracy 17 Aug 2012

[Government Shill #2]

I don't have any "Official Fairytale" facts. I've told you before, the "Official
Fairytale" may be wrong, or a lie, or whatever, but I think you are far more
wrong. The challenge is for you to *support* your bullshit properly and make
your facts better than the "Official Fairytale". So far you are way behind.

>Still there is nothing that explains the surviving corners of several
>buildings, the enormous debris cloud, the molten metal and the reason why
>Ground Zero is called ground zero better than a mini nuke or three.
>
>> You're just going to ignore the other points raised and hope they go away?
>
>What are you talking about?

I am talking about the other points I raised above. There were 3. You addressed
only the last one. Have a look. They are still there.

> From what I've seen Dimitri Khalezoz has faced
>all the naysayers.
> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/

Uh... WTF does that have to do with the contents of my posts?

Shill #2
--
We have all see the evidence that neither WTC 1, WTC 2 or WTC 7 were left
standing and the only way they could be so completely destroyed is if they
collapsed into their own footprint. Duh.
Roger Wittekind (Rocky) alt.conspiracy 10 Oct 13

[Government Shill #2]

kOOksite

>and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition

kOOk User Page on Wikipedia

Shill #2
--
As for the Twin Towers. The plan was to use those buildings to destroy
other parts of the World Trade Center so they didn't have to fall at 100%
freefall like WTC 7 did.
Roger Wittekind (Rocky) alt.conspiracy 11 Oct 13

[Government Shill #2]

On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:21:41 +0000, Tony Dragon <tony....@btinternet.com>
wrote:

And weight v mass, and therm*te, and pyroclastic flows, and...

Shill #2
--
"stonium barium niabate... is actually a bunch of crystals
that are perfect 3D holograms."
Roger Wittekind (Rocky) - alt.conspiracy 28 Sep 2013

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:F72dnRDKRfI9OyXP...@bt.com...

> On 22/12/2013 22:39, Rocky wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:tP2dneD4XsnowyrP...@bt.com...
>>> On 22/12/2013 21:11, Rocky wrote:
>>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:SbWdnZ5G1LfB0irP...@bt.com...
>>>>> On 22/12/2013 19:30, Rocky wrote:
>>>>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:YsadnUqvcd6yqyrP...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> On 22/12/13 22:37, Tony Dragon wrote:

< SNIP >

While waiting for you to prove that the surviving corner and the six floors
of stairwell B in WTC 1 was just "dynamic" I started a new thread just for
you to address the issues you have just been dancing around.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:GdCdnRl7s4ImOiXP...@bt.com...

> On 22/12/2013 21:53, Rocky wrote:
>> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:zK6dndHN_6UxxCrP...@bt.com...
>>> On 22/12/2013 19:27, Rocky wrote:
>>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:YsadnUuvcd4bqCrP...@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 22/12/13 16:47, Rocky wrote:
>>>>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fNednYgEFp9yxSvP...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> On 22/12/13 12:55, Government Shill #2 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:25:50 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:

< SNIP >

T-annoy, while waiting for you to prove that the surviving corner and the

six floors of stairwell B in WTC 1 was just "dynamic" I started a new thread

just for you to address the major issues you have just been dancing around.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:GdCdnRt7s4KBNCXP...@bt.com...

> On 23/12/2013 19:36, Rocky wrote:
>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>> news:TfidnSW_mqwwFyXP...@giganews.com...
>>> On 23/12/13 19:17, Government Shill #2 wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 23:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:7iveb99ak93mfkse5...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:44:51 -0500, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com>
>>>>>> wrote:

< SNIP >

T-annoy, while waiting for you to prove that the surviving corner and the

six floors of stairwell B in WTC 1 was just "dynamic" and that the massive
debris cloud coming from the World Trade Center was just smoke I started a

[Tony Dragon]

On 23/12/2013 22:13, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:F72dnRDKRfI9OyXP...@bt.com...
>> On 22/12/2013 22:39, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:tP2dneD4XsnowyrP...@bt.com...
>>>> On 22/12/2013 21:11, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:SbWdnZ5G1LfB0irP...@bt.com...
>>>>>> On 22/12/2013 19:30, Rocky wrote:
>>>>>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:YsadnUqvcd6yqyrP...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> On 22/12/13 22:37, Tony Dragon wrote:
>
> < SNIP >
>
> While waiting for you to prove that the surviving corner and the six floors
> of stairwell B in WTC 1 was just "dynamic" I started a new thread just for
> you to address the issues you have just been dancing around.
>
> Rocky
>
>

No need to, I have answered the question before.

[Rocky]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:j6bhb9pppqp0tkgfl...@4ax.com...

Well, he has certainly looked at more evidence than you ever have because
you have never bothered to explain the "Surviving Corners", Stairwell B,
Fiterman Hall, the MASSIVE debris cloud coming from the World Trade Center
or why Ground Zero was called ground zero but he has done all that and more.

Rocky

[Tony Dragon]

On 23/12/2013 22:13, Rocky wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:F72dnRDKRfI9OyXP...@bt.com...
>> On 22/12/2013 22:39, Rocky wrote:
>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:tP2dneD4XsnowyrP...@bt.com...
>>>> On 22/12/2013 21:11, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:SbWdnZ5G1LfB0irP...@bt.com...
>>>>>> On 22/12/2013 19:30, Rocky wrote:
>>>>>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:YsadnUqvcd6yqyrP...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>> On 22/12/13 22:37, Tony Dragon wrote:
>
> < SNIP >
>
> While waiting for you to prove that the surviving corner and the six floors
> of stairwell B in WTC 1 was just "dynamic" I started a new thread just for
> you to address the issues you have just been dancing around.
>
> Rocky
>
>

BTW you snipped some of my post, so I'll post it again.

[Tony Dragon]

You snipped part of my post again, let me ask the questions again.

[Rocky]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4dbhb95gjldttvopu...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:00:13 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>news:7oidnX4Dd9MsACXP...@giganews.com...
>>> On 24/12/13 08:13, Rocky wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes your post is crazy because you can't address a single issue that
>>>> mini
>>>> nukes at Ground Zero can address. <G>
>>>>
>>> 120 kt devices are NOT mini anything.
>>> If you want to look a little less like a brainless moron use Google and
>>> come up with pages like
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon
>>
>>Knock, knock ggoree. Why are you bitching to me? My name is not Dimitri
>>Khalzov you idiot.
>>
>>If you start with the evidence of:
>>1. Surviving Corners and more of both WTC 1 and WTC 2.
>>2. The damage done to Fiterman Hall.
>>3. The super massive debris cloud
>>4. The name Ground Zero
>
>
> 5. No fuckin' great hole left behind three 150kt explosions

Then what were the great big holes under the Twin Towers from?

> 6. No radioactive fallout detected anywhere, by anyone

Riiight. And yet people died from things caused by radioactive poisoning.

> 7. No sign of three extremely hot fireballs

Riiight. Only extreme heat that came from the ground for months.

> 8. No seismic evidence, which normally would float your boat

ROTFLMAO because the seismic activity states that the alleged jets were more
powerful than a 47 story building hitting the ground so we know that is a
lie.

Plus, someone clearly felt the ground shake and it has to be at least a 5.0
to make that happen so there was at least a 5.0 in New York City and yet
they claim it only hit 2.6. Riiight.

> 9. No nothing

You mean no explainion for the surviving corners and the 6 floors of
Stairwell B in WTC 1 coming from you. <G>

http://www.nuclear-demolition.com

> All your facts are bullshit.

And you have NO FACTS AT ALL as proven by the bs you posted above.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:otbhb9h8nqlt95e67...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 04:28:03 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>

< SNIP >

>
>> From what I've seen Dimitri Khalezoz has faced
>>all the naysayers.
>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/
>
> Uh... WTF does that have to do with the contents of my posts?

It says you are arguing with the wrong person.

If you want to tell an expert in nuclear explosions he is wrong go right
ahead and you can leave him a message at:
http://www.nuclear-demolition.com/

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:j5chb9t90o69s1avp...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:07:49 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>"Dean Markley" <dama...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:946fb2b5-49b9-47be...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Monday, December 23, 2013 5:28:03 AM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What are you talking about? From what I've seen Dimitri Khalezoz has
>>>> faced
>>>> all the naysayers.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/02/thoughts-on-mini-nukes-theory-in-regard-to-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/
>>>
>>> You're special, aren't you? As in education?
>>
>>Daen, if that is the best you can do at explaining the "Surviving Corners"
>>to the Twin Towers and why the building north of WTC 7 was also damaged
>>you
>>need a lot of help.
>>
>>I know it will be hard to take at first but the only thing that explains
>>the
>>debris cloud the stretched for miles, the Surviving Corners to the Twin
>>Towers, all the heat that lasted for months and why ground zero was called
>>ground zero by the pre-911 definition of ground zero is not just one mini
>>nuke was used but three mini nukes were used.
>>
>>See:
>> http://www.nuclear-demolition.com
>
>
> kOOksite

And yet you can not provide any explaination at all for the Surviving
Corners of the Twin Towers, the surviving 6 floors of Stairwell B in WTC 1,
the SUPER massive debris cloud or why ground zero is called ground zero.
<G>

>>and
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smallman12q/Nuclear_Demolition
>
> kOOk User Page on Wikipedia

And yet you can not provide any explaination at all for the Surviving
Corners of the Twin Towers, the surviving 6 floors of Stairwell B in WTC 1,
the SUPER massive debris cloud or why ground zero is called ground zero.
<G>

So you have to attack a witness that can. You will have to do better than
that if you want to try and prove him wrong.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:prWdnZnKntkzKyXP...@bt.com...

PROVE IT ASSHOLE

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:prWdnZjKntm5KiXP...@bt.com...

T-annoy, why are you running and hiding from your bullshit about the
"dynamic" "surviving corners and 'dynamic' surviving Stairwell B in WTC 1"
and calling the massive debris cloud just "smoke?"

Rocky
>
>

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:prWdnZvKntk8KiXP...@bt.com...

> On 23/12/2013 22:18, Rocky wrote:
>>
>> "Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:GdCdnRt7s4KBNCXP...@bt.com...
>>> On 23/12/2013 19:36, Rocky wrote:
>>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:TfidnSW_mqwwFyXP...@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 23/12/13 19:17, Government Shill #2 wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 23:35:57 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:7iveb99ak93mfkse5...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:44:51 -0500, BDK <Con...@Worldcontrol.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> < SNIP >
>>
>> T-annoy, while waiting for you to prove that the surviving corner and the
>> six floors of stairwell B in WTC 1 was just "dynamic" and that the
>> massive
>> debris cloud coming from the World Trade Center was just smoke I started
>> a
>> new thread just for you to address the major issues you have just been
>> dancing around.
>>
>> Rocky

T-annoy, why are you running and hiding from your bullshit about the
"dynamic" "surviving corners and 'dynamic' surviving Stairwell B in WTC 1"
and calling the massive debris cloud just "smoke?"

I'm sure you can see the thread I posted just for you.

Rocky