Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

[Rocky]

Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01:

We know that nano-technology existed before 9/11/01 from things NIST did
before 9/11/01.

We know that thermate existed long before 9/11/01 because of thermate bombs
used a long time before 9/11/01..

For anyone to assume that our own government had not mixed nano-technology
and thermate long before 9/11/01 has been a victim of disinformation.

Oddly enough while I've been proving that NIST has been lie after lie after
lie I've been faced with lie after lie after lie from PadNOTright.

*** Proof that WTC 7 fell at 100% free fall for the first 105 feet ***

Start with the graph that NIST has on page 46 of the NIST NCSTAR 1A BS.

If you read the information on the graph you will notice that only the dots
with the red circles are real data points. So that means WTC 7 went
straight into 100% free fall and held 100% free fall for 2.25 seconds.

Yet NIST has never been able to explain how that much free fall could be
caused by one column on the 12th floor losing it's lateral support. NIST
couldn't even give us a comic book cartoon of why WTC 7 went straight into
100% free fall.

The fact remains that the mixture of nano-technology and thermate brought
down WTC 7 and that has to remain the fact until NIST comes up with a viable
alternative but I doubt if NIST can do that after 11 years of total bullshit
from NIST about WTC 7 and the Twin Towers.

Rocky

[george152]

On 20/11/12 09:10, Rocky wrote:
> Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01:
>
> We know that nano-technology existed before 9/11/01 from things NIST did
> before 9/11/01.
>
> We know that thermate existed long before 9/11/01 because of thermate bombs
> used a long time before 9/11/01..

Wrong!
Yet another lie.
The substance was THERMITE!
It is an incendiary used since the WW1.
And NIST had absolutely nothing to do with Nano technology.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 2:10pm (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)

====================
Typical Rockhead post

Just unsubstaniated BS.

For someone who supposedly won a court case acting as his own lawyer,
you seem to have 'zero' grasp of what constitutes valid evidence.
---------------------------

--
"Again and again we have owed peace to the fact we were prepared for
war."--

Theodore Roosevelt

[Rocky]

"george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
news:cYOdnX0YdIpECjfN...@giganews.com...

And you are just like NIST making statements with no facts to back them up
or making statements in graphs that are not supported by the rest of their
bullshit.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8367-50A...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...

That is pretty funny coming from someone that can't admit that WTC 7 went

straight into 100% free fall and held 100% free fall for 2.25 seconds

because he can't read the graph on page 46 of the NIST NCSTAR 1A BS.

Here, I'll help you. Only the dots with the circles are real. The other
dots are computations used to make it appear that WTC 7 was not a controlled
demolition.

And the comic book cartoon graphics from NIST do not show the 100% of
symmetrical free fall so those graphics are proof of evidence tampering by
NIST.

So NIST is the liar and they have stooped to tampering with the evidence
too.

Rocky

[Government Shill #2]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:47:35 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cYOdnX0YdIpECjfN...@giganews.com...
>
> > On 20/11/12 09:10, Rocky wrote:
>
> >> Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01:
>
> >>
>
> >> We know that nano-technology existed before 9/11/01 from things NIST did
>
> >> before 9/11/01.
>
> >>
>
> >> We know that thermate existed long before 9/11/01 because of thermate
>
> >> bombs
>
> >> used a long time before 9/11/01..
>
> > Wrong!
>
> > Yet another lie.
>
> > The substance was THERMITE!
>
> > It is an incendiary used since the WW1.
>
> > And NIST had absolutely nothing to do with Nano technology.
>
>
>
> And you are just like NIST making statements with no facts to back them up

Damn!

The irony in that line blew the back cover clean off my Irony-O-Meter 3000™. Smoke everywhere! Even with the 300A fuses in place.

--
Shill #2

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 12:53pm (EST-3) From:
gov....@gmail.com (Government Shill #2)

===============================

That's why I no longer run rockhead, slow joe or guthberg through the
StupidMeter Mark IIIA.

[Government Shill #2]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:20:03 AM UTC+11, Padraigh ProAmerica wrote:
> Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01
>
>
>
> Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Mon, Nov 19, 2012, 12:53pm (EST-3) From:
>
> gov....@gmail.com (Government Shill #2)
>
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:47:35 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
>
> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>
> news:cYOdnX0YdIpECjfN...@giganews.com...
>
> On 20/11/12 09:10, Rocky wrote:
>
> Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01:
>
> We know that nano-technology existed before 9/11/01 from things NIST did
>
> before 9/11/01.
>
> We know that thermate existed long before 9/11/01 because of thermate
>
> bombs
>
> used a long time before 9/11/01..
>
>     Wrong!
>
> Yet another lie.
>
> The substance was THERMITE!
>
> It is an incendiary used since the WW1.
>
> And NIST had absolutely nothing to do with Nano technology.
>
> And you are just like NIST making statements with no facts to back them
> up
>
> Damn!
>
> The irony in that line blew the back cover clean off my Irony-O-Meter
> 3000™. Smoke everywhere! Even with the 300A fuses in place.
>

> ===============================
>
> That's why I no longer run rockhead, slow joe or guthberg through the
> StupidMeter Mark IIIA.

We need to redesign them to incorporate a logarithmic scale. The originals didn't take the exponential stupidity of these clowns into account.

--
Shill #2
Head of Meters-R-Us at Shill Central

[george152]

I didn't have mine on

[Government Shill #2]

> > The irony in that line blew the back cover clean off my Irony-O-Meter 3000�. Smoke everywhere! Even with the 300A fuses in place.

>
> >
>
> I didn't have mine on

Smart move.

I'm still trying to get the smell of burning wires out of my office.

--
Shill #2
Shill Central

[Rocky]

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

news:67ydnc6u-NroKzfN...@giganews.com...

caught shitt #2 and georgie both moving goalpost again.

Rocky

[Government Shill #2]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Whatta maroon!

[george152]

Yet another lie.
Of course I didn't have my BS detector on I knew you'd have replied to
the thread and I can't afford to replace the unit

[edrh...@hotmail.com]

> > And you are just like NIST making statements with no facts to back them up
>
> Damn!
>
> The irony in that line blew the back cover clean off my Irony-O-Meter 3000™. Smoke everywhere! Even with the 300A fuses in place.
>
> --
>
> Shill #2

I TOLD you not to use a 3000 on Rocky's OR slowjoe's posts. It's just not up to it. Upgrade to a 4500 or even a 5000 these days!

[Government Shill #2]

Thanks. I'll get one from the Shill Depot this afternoon.

[Rocky]

<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9a5165d2-b96c-4c81...@googlegroups.com...

>
> I TOLD you not to use a 3000 on Rocky's OR slowjoe's posts. It's just not
> up to it. Upgrade to a 4500 or even a 5000 these days!

And that explains nano-thermate how?

Rocky

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Tue, Nov 20, 2012, 6:58am (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)

======================
Since you never provide evidence for your delusions, we're having a
little technological fun.
-------------------------

[edrh...@hotmail.com]

It doesn't. It pokes fun at the stupidity of your posts.
It's a joke... I do that.

[BDK]

In article <eca74cb5-f681-47e4...@googlegroups.com>,
gov....@gmail.com says...

>
> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:29:52 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
> > "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:67ydnc6u-NroKzfN...@giganews.com...
> >
> > > On 20/11/12 09:53, Government Shill #2 wrote:
> >
> > >> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:47:35 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
> >
> > >>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> news:cYOdnX0YdIpECjfN...@giganews.com...
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>> On 20/11/12 09:10, Rocky wrote:
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>>> Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01:
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>>>
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>>> We know that nano-technology existed before 9/11/01 from things NIST
> >
> > >>>>> did
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>>> before 9/11/01.
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>>>
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>>> We know that thermate existed long before 9/11/01 because of thermate
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>>> bombs
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>>> used a long time before 9/11/01..
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>> Wrong!
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>> Yet another lie.
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>> The substance was THERMITE!
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>> It is an incendiary used since the WW1.
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>> And NIST had absolutely nothing to do with Nano technology.
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>>
> >
> > >>> And you are just like NIST making statements with no facts to back them
> >
> > >>> up
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> Damn!
> >
> > >>
> >
> > >> The irony in that line blew the back cover clean off my Irony-O-Meter
> >

> > >> 3000?. Smoke everywhere! Even with the 300A fuses in place.

> >
> > >>
> >
> > > I didn't have mine on
> >
> >
> >
> > caught shitt #2 and georgie both moving goalpost again.
>
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> Whatta maroon!

Every time I'm totally convinced Rockhead and SlowJoe are just trolls,
one of them says something so dopey, I have doubts.

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

[george152]

It's as real as your nano thermite

[Rocky]

<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ca73337-37e6-4692...@googlegroups.com...

FYI that is also called sidetracking or shifting goal post.

The fact is and it is proven by page 46 of the NIST NCSTAR 1A BS that NIST
claims WTC 7 started to collapse 1.75 seconds before they made their first
measurement and you don't think that is odd. I think they started their
clock when they heard explosions go off.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:14103-50...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...

>
> Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01
>
> Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Tue, Nov 20, 2012, 6:58am (EST-1) From:
> woo...@att.net (Rocky)
> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9a5165d2-b96c-4c81...@googlegroups.com...
> I TOLD you not to use a 3000 on Rocky's OR slowjoe's posts. It's just
> not up to it. Upgrade to a 4500 or even a 5000 these days!
> And that explains nano-thermate how?
> Rocky
>
> ======================
> Since you never provide evidence for your delusions, we're having a
> little technological fun.
> -------------------------

I've proven NIST knows WTC 7 fell at 100% free fall speed for the first 105
feet from a graph on page 46 of the NIST NCSTAR 1A BS.

Then you say will if you measure the entire fall it did not average 100%
free fall.

Then I say all that matters is the very first 105 feet and you or NIST have
never explained why WTC 7 went straight into a 100% free fall from one
column on one floor losing it's lateral support and you know you can't
explain that either.

Rocky

[Government Shill #2]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:05:08 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

>I've proven ...

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Shill #2
--
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who
are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at
Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo
the Clown.
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[Tony Dragon]

On 20/11/2012 20:05, Rocky wrote:
> "Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:14103-50...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
>>
>> Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01
>>
>> Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Tue, Nov 20, 2012, 6:58am (EST-1) From:
>> woo...@att.net (Rocky)
>> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9a5165d2-b96c-4c81...@googlegroups.com...
>> I TOLD you not to use a 3000 on Rocky's OR slowjoe's posts. It's just
>> not up to it. Upgrade to a 4500 or even a 5000 these days!
>> And that explains nano-thermate how?
>> Rocky
>>
>> ======================
>> Since you never provide evidence for your delusions, we're having a
>> little technological fun.
>> -------------------------
>
> I've proven NIST knows WTC 7 fell at 100% free fall speed for the first 105
> feet from a graph on page 46 of the NIST NCSTAR 1A BS.

Errm, no you haven't.

>
> Then you say will if you measure the entire fall it did not average 100%
> free fall.
>

If you say so.

> Then I say all that matters is the very first 105 feet and you or NIST have
> never explained why WTC 7 went straight into a 100% free fall from one
> column on one floor losing it's lateral support and you know you can't
> explain that either.
>
> Rocky
>
>

Errm no it doesn't.

[Government Shill #2]

It seems like he likes the term "moving the goalposts", but doesn't understand
how to use it.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

I think slowjoe is actually pretending to be that stupid.

Rockhead? I doubt he's pretending. He's stupid on too many fronts.

Shill #2
--
I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.
Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964)

[george152]

On 21/11/12 09:00, Rocky wrote:
> page 46

Wrong.
P46 describes the workplace and lifts.
Yet another lie
There is no 'free fall' nor are there any explosions.

[Tony Dragon]

On 20/11/2012 20:00, Rocky wrote:
> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5ca73337-37e6-4692...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:58:16 AM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
>>> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:9a5165d2-b96c-4c81...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I TOLD you not to use a 3000 on Rocky's OR slowjoe's posts. It's just
>>>> not
>>>> up to it. Upgrade to a 4500 or even a 5000 these days!
>>>
>>> And that explains nano-thermate how?
>>>
>>> Rocky
>>
>> It doesn't. It pokes fun at the stupidity of your posts.
>> It's a joke... I do that.
>
> FYI that is also called sidetracking or shifting goal post.
>

You mean the thing you do, every time you are proved wrong.

> The fact is and it is proven by page 46 of the NIST NCSTAR 1A BS that NIST
> claims WTC 7 started to collapse 1.75 seconds before they made their first
> measurement and you don't think that is odd. I think they started their
> clock when they heard explosions go off.
>
> Rocky
>
>

Of course, others will read the report.

[Rocky]

"Tony Dragon" <tony....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:aeWdnQHYO8KRejbN...@bt.com...

> On 20/11/2012 20:05, Rocky wrote:
>> "Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:14103-50...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
>>>
>>> Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01
>>>
>>> Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Tue, Nov 20, 2012, 6:58am (EST-1) From:
>>> woo...@att.net (Rocky)
>>> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9a5165d2-b96c-4c81...@googlegroups.com...
>>> I TOLD you not to use a 3000 on Rocky's OR slowjoe's posts. It's just
>>> not up to it. Upgrade to a 4500 or even a 5000 these days!
>>> And that explains nano-thermate how?
>>> Rocky
>>>
>>> ======================
>>> Since you never provide evidence for your delusions, we're having a
>>> little technological fun.
>>> -------------------------
>>
>> I've proven NIST knows WTC 7 fell at 100% free fall speed for the first
>> 105
>> feet from a graph on page 46 of the NIST NCSTAR 1A BS.
>
>
> Errm, no you haven't.

Better look again at the graph above and tell me when the first data point
is recorded. I'll be waiting for you to lie about it.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vipna81jf11a27fra...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:05:08 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>I've proven ...
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Don't tell me you failed physics too. But now I know why NIST can lie and
lie and lie and that is because idiots can't read graphs.

Try to prove to me you can read a graph and tell me when the first data
point was recorded for the chart on page 46 of the NIST NCSTAR 1A BS.

Rocky

[Government Shill #2]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:16:54 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:vipna81jf11a27fra...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:05:08 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >>I've proven ...
>
> >
>
> > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
>
>
> Don't tell me you failed physics too.

No. I passed. Physics was my best subject.

I just find it amusing that you think you have proven anything.

Wait! I take it back. You have proven *one* thing. You have proven that you have no idea what proof is!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

--
Shill #2

[Rocky]

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

news:JrGdnfrLFae4ejbN...@giganews.com...

Now you are full of bullshit or you are not looking at the graph on page 46
of NIST NCSTAR 1A. Don't forget that NIST also has a NCSTAR 1 that contains
their total bullshit about WTC1 and WTC2.

Don't forget that

1. The destruction of WTC 7 was unprecedented
2. The steel evidence was destroyed or unexplained
3. NIST's final theory followed years of failed hypotheses
4. NIST's final theory could not have been predicted
5. NIST's report is self-contradictory and contradicts other known facts
6. NIST's report is deceptive
7. NIST's final theory for collapse initiation is unscientific and false

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf

Rocky

[Rocky]

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

news:aeWdnQDYO8LMejbN...@bt.com...

> On 20/11/2012 20:00, Rocky wrote:
>> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5ca73337-37e6-4692...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:58:16 AM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
>>>> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:9a5165d2-b96c-4c81...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I TOLD you not to use a 3000 on Rocky's OR slowjoe's posts. It's just
>>>>> not
>>>>> up to it. Upgrade to a 4500 or even a 5000 these days!
>>>>
>>>> And that explains nano-thermate how?
>>>>
>>>> Rocky
>>>
>>> It doesn't. It pokes fun at the stupidity of your posts.
>>> It's a joke... I do that.
>>
>> FYI that is also called sidetracking or shifting goal post.
>>
>
> You mean the thing you do, every time you are proved wrong.

Oh bullshit and the fact remains NIST claimed the collapse of WTC 7 started
1.5 seconds before WTC 7 started coming down as proven by the data points on
the graph at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7-nist1a-fig3-15.jpg

And then that graph can be used to prove as soon as WTC 7 started coming
down it went straight into 100% free fall for 2.25 seconds and NIST has
never tried to explain that but nano-thermate can explain that.

And at the same time NIST has tried to conceal evidence that WTC 7 went
straight into 100% free fall because they are LIARS.

Rocky

[Rocky]

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

news:a7161f7e-8c5f-4fb2...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:16:54 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
>> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:vipna81jf11a27fra...@4ax.com...
>>
>> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:05:08 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>I've proven ...
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't tell me you failed physics too.
>
>
> No. I passed. Physics was my best subject.

Ok, if you are so smart take a look at the following graph and tell me where
is the first real data point?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7-nist1a-fig3-15.jpg

<G> <G> <G>

Rocky

[Government Shill #2]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:40:23 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a7161f7e-8c5f-4fb2...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:16:54 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
>
> >> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> >> news:vipna81jf11a27fra...@4ax.com...
>
> >>
>
> >> > On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:05:08 -0600, "Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> >>I've proven ...
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Don't tell me you failed physics too.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > No. I passed. Physics was my best subject.
>
>
>
> Ok, if you are so smart take a look at the following graph and tell me where
> is the first real data point?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7-nist1a-fig3-15.jpg

Easy.

The first "Velocity computed numerically" point is at approximately 0.4 seconds on the Time axis and zero on the Downward Velocity axis. At the beginning of the black curve.

And... so what?

--
Shill #2

[BDK]

In article <8lpna8trgvdrq1ef0...@4ax.com>,
gov....@gmail.com says...

I just don't know, except pretty much everything they say is just wrong.

[george152]

On 21/11/12 10:27, Rocky wrote:
> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
> news:JrGdnfrLFae4ejbN...@giganews.com...
>> On 21/11/12 09:00, Rocky wrote:
>>> page 46
>>
>> Wrong.
>> P46 describes the workplace and lifts.
>> Yet another lie
>> There is no 'free fall' nor are there any explosions.
>
> Now you are full of bullshit or you are not looking at the graph on page 46
> of NIST NCSTAR 1A. Don't forget that NIST also has a NCSTAR 1 that contains
> their total bullshit about WTC1 and WTC2.

The only diagram on that page is the distribution of lifts in the
building...Don't lie about something that takes seconds to check up on

[george152]

Page 46 of your 'document' concerns the position of the Con Edison
structure..
No graph there either

[Rocky]

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

news:1fbffa31-3e80-48d0...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:40:23 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
>> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>

>> > No. I passed. Physics was my best subject.
>>
>> Ok, if you are so smart take a look at the following graph and tell me
>> where
>> is the first real data point?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7-nist1a-fig3-15.jpg
>
> Easy.
>
> The first "Velocity computed numerically" point is at approximately 0.4
> seconds on the Time axis and zero on the Downward Velocity axis. At the
> beginning of the black curve.

ROTFLMAO because that black curve means nothing at all because it does not
use real data points. The only real data points are the ones with the
circle around them. There, now try again. Where is the first real data
point on the graph above? <G>

Rocky

[Rocky]

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

news:HqednRKC6b8jjDHN...@giganews.com...

Are you getting your copy of the NIST NCSTAR 1A BS from the following?
Because it sure doesn't seem like it.

NIST NCSTAR 1a Fairytale can be found at:
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

Rocky

[Rocky]

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

news:asqdncFTYdwPiTHN...@giganews.com...

Seems you aren't looking at the NIST NCSTAR 1A pdf so try this location:

NIST NCSTAR 1A can be found at:
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

And you should see this graph on page 46:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7-nist1a-fig3-15.jpg

What that graph proves is NIST is trying their best to give us fake data
because the dots computed are not real data. The only real data on that
graph starts at 1.75 seconds and I'm sure NIST did that crap on purpose.

Rocky

[Government Shill #2]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:31:15 PM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1fbffa31-3e80-48d0...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:40:23 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
>
> >> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> > No. I passed. Physics was my best subject.
>
> >>
>
> >> Ok, if you are so smart take a look at the following graph and tell me
>
> >> where
>
> >> is the first real data point?
>
> >>
>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7-nist1a-fig3-15.jpg
>
> >
>
> > Easy.
>
> >
>
> > The first "Velocity computed numerically" point is at approximately 0.4
>
> > seconds on the Time axis and zero on the Downward Velocity axis. At the
>
> > beginning of the black curve.
>
>
>
> ROTFLMAO because that black curve means nothing at all because it does not
> use real data points. The only real data points are the ones with the
> circle around them.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

As clearly stated in the legend of the graph, the red circles indicate:

"Data used in linear regresion"

They are a *subset* of the "real data points". The ones which form an almost straight line. The are used to show an approximation of the almost constant rate of collapse over the period of Stage 2.

Did you miss the labels Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3? Stages 1 and 3 are also part of the collapse you know?

The "real data points" are all the black ones, including those circled, which show how the collapse started off slowly, accelerated and then remaind reasonable constant, before slowing down again.

Whatta dick!

--
Shill #2

[Government Shill #2]

On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:31:15 PM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1fbffa31-3e80-48d0...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:40:23 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
>
> >> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> > No. I passed. Physics was my best subject.
>
> >>
>
> >> Ok, if you are so smart take a look at the following graph and tell me
>
> >> where
>
> >> is the first real data point?
>
> >>
>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7-nist1a-fig3-15.jpg
>
> >
>
> > Easy.
>
> >
>
> > The first "Velocity computed numerically" point is at approximately 0.4
>
> > seconds on the Time axis and zero on the Downward Velocity axis. At the
>
> > beginning of the black curve.
>
>
>
> ROTFLMAO because that black curve means nothing at all because it does not
> use real data points.

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than free fall, due to buckling of exterior columns in the lower stories.

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall), indicating no support from the structure below.

Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, due to increased resistance from the collapsed structure and debris below.

[george152]

On 21/11/12 14:34, Rocky wrote:
> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
> news:HqednRKC6b8jjDHN...@giganews.com...
>> On 21/11/12 10:27, Rocky wrote:
>>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
>>> news:JrGdnfrLFae4ejbN...@giganews.com...
>>>> On 21/11/12 09:00, Rocky wrote:
>>>>> page 46
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>> P46 describes the workplace and lifts.
>>>> Yet another lie
>>>> There is no 'free fall' nor are there any explosions.
>>>
>>> Now you are full of bullshit or you are not looking at the graph on page
>>> 46
>>> of NIST NCSTAR 1A. Don't forget that NIST also has a NCSTAR 1 that
>>> contains
>>> their total bullshit about WTC1 and WTC2.
>>
>>
>> The only diagram on that page is the distribution of lifts in the
>> building...Don't lie about something that takes seconds to check up on
>
> Are you getting your copy of the NIST NCSTAR 1A BS from the following?
> Because it sure doesn't seem like it.

There is no NIST NCSTAR 1A BS

> NIST NCSTAR 1a Fairytale can be found at:
> http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

You have to actually give the real name of the document if you
-really- want to be taken seriously.
So far your page number and document name are wrong

[edrh...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 3:00:43 PM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5ca73337-37e6-4692...@googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:58:16 AM UTC-5, Rocky wrote:
>
> >> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> >> news:9a5165d2-b96c-4c81...@googlegroups.com...
>
> >>
>
> >> >
>
> >>
>
> >> > I TOLD you not to use a 3000 on Rocky's OR slowjoe's posts. It's just
>
> >> > not
>
> >> > up to it. Upgrade to a 4500 or even a 5000 these days!
>
> >>
>
> >> And that explains nano-thermate how?
>
> >>
>
> >> Rocky
>
> >
>
> > It doesn't. It pokes fun at the stupidity of your posts.
>
> > It's a joke... I do that.
>
>
>
> FYI that is also called sidetracking or shifting goal post.

No it's not. Sidetracking or shifting the goal posts (fixed your grammar there, you're welcome) involves changing the subject, not making a joke. For example, when pinned down on the stupidity of your theory about laser holographic planes and mysterious clouds, you'll mention WTC7. When pinned down on WTC7, you'll bring up the Pentagon, when pinned down over that, you'll go back to the Towers and low res video which "proves" the presence of mysterious clouds and laser holographs (or giant parabolc mirrors, remember when you proposed THAT wowser?)

Making a joke is mild in comparison.

[Rocky]

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

news:b4fcc91c-9c5a-484d...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:31:15 PM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
>> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1fbffa31-3e80-48d0...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:40:23 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
>>
>> >> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > No. I passed. Physics was my best subject.
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> Ok, if you are so smart take a look at the following graph and tell me
>>
>> >> where
>>
>> >> is the first real data point?
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7-nist1a-fig3-15.jpg
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Easy.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The first "Velocity computed numerically" point is at approximately 0.4
>>
>> > seconds on the Time axis and zero on the Downward Velocity axis. At the
>>
>> > beginning of the black curve.
>>
>>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO because that black curve means nothing at all because it does
>> not
>> use real data points. The only real data points are the ones with the
>> circle around them.
>
>
> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
>
> As clearly stated in the legend of the graph, the red circles indicate:
>
> "Data used in linear regresion"

And don't forget the dots without the circles were "Velocity computed
numerically" instead of data or measured.

> They are a *subset* of the "real data points".

No they are computed and they have to be computed because the video they
used for their measurements didn't give them that much data. Besides using
computed data instead of real data gave NIST an easy way to bullshit us
again.

> The ones which form an almost straight line. The are used to show an
> approximation of the almost constant rate of collapse over the period of
> Stage 2.

Actually that straight line is 100% free fall for New York City and you can
tell that because of one of the constants they use.

> Did you miss the labels Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3? Stages 1 and 3 are
> also part of the collapse you know?

Stage 1 is about 1.5 seconds too long and all stage 3 consisted of is when
things went wrong with the controlled demolition.

>
> The "real data points" are all the black ones

Then why did it label them "computed" and then why didn't the 'S' curve
follow the black dots in the so called "stage 3?"

, including those circled, which show how the collapse started off slowly,
accelerated and then remaind reasonable constant, before slowing down again.

But in reality NIST don't know if it started off slow because they had no
way to measure that so they had to calculate the data. Chances are it
started out at 100% free fall or there would have been trouble in the first
8 floors of the controlled demoliton.

> Whatta dick!

Too bad you are lying about the black dots that you had just called
"Velocity computed numerically" earlier. <G>

Rocky

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 8:11am (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)

=========================

Sure there is. The collapse is on film.
--------------------------------

so they had to calculate the data. Chances are it started out at 100%
free fall

=========================

No it didn't. The film and analysis proved that conclusively.
------------------------------------

or there would have been trouble in the first 8 floors of the
controlled demoliton.

======================

This is where you veer off the track of sanity. Your analysis is based
on a flawed premise. If there had been internal explosions of ANY type,
their could NOT have been true freefall, as the force of the exposions
would have RETARDED the fall slightly.

Of coure, there were no explosions and no controlled demolition at all.
---------------------------------

Whatta dick!
Too bad you are lying about the black dots that you had just called
"Velocity computed numerically" earlier. <G>
Rocky

--
"Again and again we have owed peace to the fact we were prepared for
war."--

Theodore Roosevelt

[the man]

In article <l42dnfYFya1yXTfN...@giganews.com>,

"Rocky" <woo...@att.net> wrote:

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

> news:67ydnc6u-NroKzfN...@giganews.com...
> > On 20/11/12 09:53, Government Shill #2 wrote:

> >> On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 7:47:35 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
> >>> "george152" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in message
> >>>

> >>> news:cYOdnX0YdIpECjfN...@giganews.com...
> >>>
> >>>> On 20/11/12 09:10, Rocky wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01:
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> We know that nano-technology existed before 9/11/01 from things NIST
> >>>>> did
> >>>
> >>>>> before 9/11/01.
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>>> We know that thermate existed long before 9/11/01 because of thermate
> >>>
> >>>>> bombs
> >>>
> >>>>> used a long time before 9/11/01..
> >>>
> >>>> Wrong!
> >>>
> >>>> Yet another lie.
> >>>
> >>>> The substance was THERMITE!
> >>>
> >>>> It is an incendiary used since the WW1.
> >>>
> >>>> And NIST had absolutely nothing to do with Nano technology.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And you are just like NIST making statements with no facts to back them
> >>> up
> >>
> >>
> >> Damn!
> >>
> >> The irony in that line blew the back cover clean off my Irony-O-Meter

> >> 3000™. Smoke everywhere! Even with the 300A fuses in place.

> >>
> > I didn't have mine on
>
> caught shitt #2 and georgie both moving goalpost again.
>

> Rocky

The question remains. Rocky, why do you argue with the brain dead?
they can't learn.
--
Karma ; what a concept!

[Rocky]

"the man" <georg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:georgewk10-7B5CE...@news.toast.net...

>> >> 3000T. Smoke everywhere! Even with the 300A fuses in place.

>> >>
>> > I didn't have mine on
>>
>> caught shitt #2 and georgie both moving goalpost again.
>>
>> Rocky
>
> The question remains. Rocky, why do you argue with the brain dead?
> they can't learn.

Not only that they can not tell the truth either.

Rocky

[Tony Dragon]

Would that be like the lie about nano-thermate being available in
quantity in 2001?

[Rocky]

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

news:4c2134eb-c4c8-408c...@googlegroups.com...

> On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:31:15 PM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
>> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1fbffa31-3e80-48d0...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:40:23 AM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
>>
>> >> "Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > No. I passed. Physics was my best subject.
>> >>
>> >> Ok, if you are so smart take a look at the following graph and tell me
>> >> where
>> >> is the first real data point?
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7-nist1a-fig3-15.jpg
>> >
>> > Easy.
>> >
>> > The first "Velocity computed numerically" point is at approximately 0.4
>> > seconds on the Time axis and zero on the Downward Velocity axis. At the
>> > beginning of the black curve.
>>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO because that black curve means nothing at all because it does
>> not
>> use real data points.
>
>
> Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than free fall, due to
> buckling of exterior columns in the lower stories.

But even that graph proves there was no downward movement measured until
1.75 since the black dots before that were labeled "computed numerically"
instead of measured.

Do not forget why NIST claims they thought the collapse of WTC 7 started 1.5
seconds before it started coming down. NIST stated:"The instant at which
vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking
the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel" meaning it was something
that had to be found with a computer instead of a human eye and then they
didn't even tell us what pixel was supposed to have changed.

On top of that chances are the pixels on either side of the pixel in
question didn't change brightness until WTC 7 actually started to collapse.
BTW the above quote from NIST can be found at:
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

And do not forget NIST basically claimed that the downward motion of WTC 7
started it was undetectable with the human eye so they had to look at
numerical values instead.

> Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall),
> indicating no support from the structure below.

But to the human eye there was no stage 1 and stage 2 started at 1.5 seconds
instead of 1.75.

> Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, due to increased
> resistance from the collapsed structure and debris below.

That is when WTC 7 started to tilt and it would have started to tilt earlier
if it had really been a gravity collapse instead of a controlled demolition
where something went wrong.

Rocky

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 5:22pm (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)

=======================

That grinding noised you hear is Rocky dragging the goalposts. Notice
the last line- a new twist.

After going over the drivel you've posted had a revelation- you are
absolutely WRONG- a free-fall collapse IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

You need to eliminate- in your bizarro world- eight floors of the
structure INSTANTANEOUSLY.

Under the conditions that day, that's NOT POSSIBLE. The building had
been hammered by tons of debris from the collpase of WTC1, Severe damage
to the lower floors; damage to other areas.

Now somehow, your magic nanothermate- and the beams on ALL EIGHT FLOORS
had to be rigged to blow ASOLUTELY TOGETHER. ALL the charges had to blow
AT THE SAME TIME TO FACILITATE THE COLLAPSE.

Now you're telling us this stuff - all of it'- wasn't knocked outof
position by the shock of the impacts? Not one had it's wiring affected?

And here's the killer- EVERY BEAM ON ALL EIGHT FLOORS HAD TO BE WIRED.
If ONE BEAM isn't cut, that prevents a true free-fall collapse.

You have advanced from a barely plausible scenario to one so outre that
it's just as likely stampeeding unicorns used their magic horns to bring
the building down.

[Rocky]

"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:20080-50...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...

But look at what NIST claims they used as the start of the collapse: "The

instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was

determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel."
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

And if the pixel went back to the same numerical value in the next screen
than that means it was a false alarm and could have been caused by
underground explosions rocking the tripod as they did with shots of the Twin
Towers before they collapsed.

> --------------------------------
> so they had to calculate the data. Chances are it started out at 100%
> free fall
> =========================
>
> No it didn't. The film and analysis proved that conclusively.

But we don't know that for sure because NIST talks about "a pixel" and we
don't know what happened to that pixel in the next few screens. What we do
know is there were no real data points recorded until NIST claimed it was
1.75 seconds into the collapse.

> ------------------------------------
>
> or there would have been trouble in the first 8 floors of the
> controlled demoliton.
>
> ======================
>
> This is where you veer off the track of sanity. Your analysis is based
> on a flawed premise. If there had been internal explosions of ANY type,
> their could NOT have been true freefall, as the force of the exposions
> would have RETARDED the fall slightly.

Not if the explosions were used to remove columns that had been melted at
the top and bottom.

> Of coure, there were no explosions and no controlled demolition at all.

Then why does NIST have to resort to all sorts of tricks to avoid why WTC 7
came down at 100% free fall for 105 feet? <G>

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:20080-50A...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...

No new twist because Stage 2 was 100% free fall for 2.25 seconds by NIST own
admission.

I just don't like the fact NIST did not take any real measurements during
their Stage 1 because that would have proven the collapse of WTC 7 did not
really start when NIST claimed it did.

> After going over the drivel you've posted had a revelation- you are
> absolutely WRONG- a free-fall collapse IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

But NIST has admitted to the 100% free fall in stage 2 of their graph and
now you are getting the picture. The only way WTC 7 could reach 100% free
fall for 105 feet is with a lot of extra energy meaning a controlled
demolition.

> You need to eliminate- in your bizarro world- eight floors of the
> structure INSTANTANEOUSLY.

That is what I have been saying all along and a gravity collapse could not
do what happened in Stage 2 of the graph on page 46 of the NIST NCSTAR 1A
pdf.

> Under the conditions that day, that's NOT POSSIBLE. The building had
> been hammered by tons of debris from the collpase of WTC1, Severe damage
> to the lower floors; damage to other areas.

All that explains is why WTC 7 did not fall for more then 105 feet at 100%
free fall.

> Now somehow, your magic nanothermate- and the beams on ALL EIGHT FLOORS
> had to be rigged to blow ASOLUTELY TOGETHER. ALL the charges had to blow
> AT THE SAME TIME TO FACILITATE THE COLLAPSE.

Not the exact same time but within 2.25 seconds of a start time.

> Now you're telling us this stuff - all of it'- wasn't knocked outof
> position by the shock of the impacts? Not one had it's wiring affected?

That is why there is something wrong with the two jet impacts in New York
City.

1. Flight 11 never took off on 9/11/01 so all we have is a doctored video
of something hitting the North Tower that evaporated right before it hit the
North Tower.

2. Flight 175 had a wing that kept fading in and out in numerous different
videos so that flight might not have been real either especially when you
consider that the radar tracking for Flight 175 was lost somehow giving it a
way to change it's transponder to make it look like another flight. And
that flight also evaporated right before it rammed into the South Tower just
like the flight that was supposed to go into the North Tower.

> And here's the killer- EVERY BEAM ON ALL EIGHT FLOORS HAD TO BE WIRED.
> If ONE BEAM isn't cut, that prevents a true free-fall collapse.

Now you are getting the picture. All you need to do now is see that NIST
admits to 100% free fall in Stage 2 of their graph and NIST does not give a
clear explanation of why Stage 1 did not have any readings taken or why it
was all computed data.

> You have advanced from a barely plausible scenario to one so outre that
> it's just as likely stampeeding unicorns used their magic horns to bring
> the building down.

I've been saying all along:

1. NIST admits to 100% free fall for 2.25 seconds or 105 feet of WTC 7 in
their graph on page 46.

2. nano-thermate could have done that since it would not make a blast event
of 130 db heard 1/2 a mile away and that was how NIST ruled out the use of
RDX.

Rocky

[Rocky]

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

news:1JidnW8vCrYOqzDN...@bt.com...

As long as NIST can not explain the 100% free fall of WTC 7 for 105 feet
without nano-thermate then it had to be used to bring down WTC 7 since
nothing else could have done what was done to WTC 7.

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST
and Nano-Thermites
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

Rocky

[Tony Dragon]

Evasion noted.

> then it had to be used to bring down WTC 7 since
> nothing else could have done what was done to WTC 7.
>
> The Top Ten Connections Between NIST
> and Nano-Thermites
> http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
>
> Rocky
>
>

So something that could not be used, had to be used to fulfil your
ideas, that obviously makes your ideas wrong.

[Tony Dragon]

Wow, now it's underground explosions.

>> --------------------------------
>> so they had to calculate the data. Chances are it started out at 100%
>> free fall
>> =========================
>>
>> No it didn't. The film and analysis proved that conclusively.
>
> But we don't know that for sure because NIST talks about "a pixel" and we
> don't know what happened to that pixel in the next few screens. What we do
> know is there were no real data points recorded until NIST claimed it was
> 1.75 seconds into the collapse.
>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> or there would have been trouble in the first 8 floors of the
>> controlled demoliton.
>>
>> ======================
>>
>> This is where you veer off the track of sanity. Your analysis is based
>> on a flawed premise. If there had been internal explosions of ANY type,
>> their could NOT have been true freefall, as the force of the exposions
>> would have RETARDED the fall slightly.
>
> Not if the explosions were used to remove columns that had been melted at
> the top and bottom.
>

But we know that columns were not melted, and there was no way of
melting them. And no explosions were heard.

>
>> Of coure, there were no explosions and no controlled demolition at all.
>
> Then why does NIST have to resort to all sorts of tricks to avoid why WTC 7
> came down at 100% free fall for 105 feet? <G>
>
> Rocky
>
>

It doesn't.

[edrh...@hotmail.com]

> That is when WTC 7 started to tilt and it would have started to tilt earlier
> if it had really been a gravity collapse instead of a controlled demolition
> where something went wrong.

It was tilting before it began to collapse. The firefighters themselves said; "That building doesn't look right." The firefighters reported a bulge between the 10th and 13th floor. The lead firefighter didn't want to send people in because the building was "creaking and groaning" Those are the signs of a building undergoing degradation. NOT of a "controlled demolition."

[edrh...@hotmail.com]

> And if the pixel went back to the same numerical value in the next screen
> than that means it was a false alarm and could have been caused by
> underground explosions rocking the tripod as they did with shots of the Twin
> Towers before they collapsed.

"could have been caused" - more "woulda coulda shoulda" from Rocky without anything to verify it.

IF they were going to fake all this information, why put different types of points on the graph at all? Why didn't this just make all the point "observed data" and stonewall? I think this just goes to show you can't read a graph.

[francis]

Just a graph?

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Wed, Nov 21, 2012, 5:51pm (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)

=============================

This is a major-league error. You keep forgetting the unusual design of
WTC7- IT HAD NO STANDARD UNDEGROUD FOUNDATION, It was built OVER an
existing underground Con Ed substation.
------------------------------------------

rocking the tripod as they did with shots of the Twin Towers before
they collapsed.
--------------------------------
so they had to calculate the data. Chances are it started out at 100%
free fall
=========================
No it didn't. The film and analysis proved that conclusively.
But we don't know that for sure because NIST talks about "a pixel" and
we don't know what happened to that pixel in the next few screens. What
we do know is there were no real data points recorded until NIST claimed
it was 1.75 seconds into the collapse.
------------------------------------
or there would have been trouble in the first 8 floors of the controlled
demoliton.
======================
This is where you veer off the track of sanity. Your analysis is based
on a flawed premise. If there had been internal explosions of ANY type,
their could NOT have been true freefall, as the force of the exposions
would have RETARDED the fall slightly.
Not if the explosions were used to remove columns that had been melted
at the top and bottom.

=======================

There is NO EVIDENCE of ANY sort of cutting agents. one whatsoever.

Also: you can NOT coordinate identical cutting times. The stuff is too
variable for thet purpose- so much so that you will not be able to
control the collapse properly.

Keep adding to your delusions- it's giving us insights into how an
abnormal minf works.
----------------------------------

Of coure, there were no explosions and no controlled demolition at all.
Then why does NIST have to resort to all sorts of tricks to avoid why
WTC 7 came down at 100% free fall for 105 feet? <G>
Rocky

[Rocky]

"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:25500-50...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...

And it was build stronger than a normal building because of that.

And you keep forgetting that NIST has never been able to either explain or
give us an example or demonstrate with a comic book cartoon how one column
that wasn't even in the center of the building on the 12th floor could lead
to a symmetrical collapse at 100% free fall for 105 feet. But nano-thermate
can explain that.

> ------------------------------------------
>
> rocking the tripod as they did with shots of the Twin Towers before
> they collapsed.
> --------------------------------
> so they had to calculate the data. Chances are it started out at 100%
> free fall
> =========================
> No it didn't. The film and analysis proved that conclusively.
> But we don't know that for sure because NIST talks about "a pixel" and
> we don't know what happened to that pixel in the next few screens. What
> we do know is there were no real data points recorded until NIST claimed
> it was 1.75 seconds into the collapse.
> ------------------------------------
> or there would have been trouble in the first 8 floors of the controlled

> demolition.

> ======================
> This is where you veer off the track of sanity. Your analysis is based
> on a flawed premise. If there had been internal explosions of ANY type,
> their could NOT have been true freefall, as the force of the exposions
> would have RETARDED the fall slightly.
> Not if the explosions were used to remove columns that had been melted
> at the top and bottom.
>
> =======================
>
> There is NO EVIDENCE of ANY sort of cutting agents. one whatsoever.

Appendix C of the FEMA report proves the use of an incendiary that was
melting steel that had sulfur added to it and thermate is thermite with
added sulfur.

> Also: you can NOT coordinate identical cutting times. The stuff is too
> variable for thet purpose- so much so that you will not be able to
> control the collapse properly.

Either you are lying or NIST is lying since there is no other way WTC 7
could be brought down as fast as it was brought down without real loud
explosions going off except by using a lot of thermate or nano-thermate.

> Keep adding to your delusions- it's giving us insights into how an
> abnormal minf works.

Keep adding to your delusions about NIST giving us any facts when the
reality is they tried their best to hide the facts just like they did with
that 100% free fall for 105 free fall.

[Tony Dragon]

Please be so kind as to quote the exact words where that is said in
Appendix C?

[edrh...@hotmail.com]

> > This is a major-league error. You keep forgetting the unusual design of
> > WTC7- IT HAD NO STANDARD UNDEGROUD FOUNDATION, It was built OVER an
> > existing underground Con Ed substation.
>
> And it was build stronger than a normal building because of that.

No. Just, just no. You did NOT say that! Are you suggesting that all those buildings which have gone up after WTC7 was designed and built got it wrong because they used legitimate foundations and standard vertical supports to design their buildings? Seriously?

> And you keep forgetting that NIST has never been able to either explain or
> give us an example or demonstrate with a comic book cartoon how one column
> that wasn't even in the center of the building on the 12th floor could lead
> to a symmetrical collapse at 100% free fall for 105 feet. But nano-thermate
> can explain that.

Except YOU can't explain where this mysterious "nano-thermate" which (pre-911) was only a laboratory experiment came from.

[edrh...@hotmail.com]

> Either you are lying or NIST is lying since there is no other way WTC 7
> could be brought down as fast as it was brought down without real loud
> explosions going off except by using a lot of thermate or nano-thermate.

As fast? As fast? The thing was watched by the firefighters as it degraded for HOURS before it finally began to collapse! HOURS, Rocky! Why can't you acknowledge that?

[Rocky]

<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5fde597a-1b0e-406c...@googlegroups.com...

Funny how that never made mainstream news but the fact a lot of other people
thought WTC7 was coming down did. Besides that is common for Controlled
Demolitions so what?

Rocky

[Rocky]

<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b18fcea1-8960-4197...@googlegroups.com...

>
> Except YOU can't explain where this mysterious "nano-thermate" which
> (pre-911) was only a laboratory experiment came from.

We know that both nano-technology and thermate were available long before
9/11/01 so why do you have to insist that nobody figured out how to get the
two of them together in time of want?

Besides, the fact remains, NIST has never been able to explain, demonstrate
with a working example or even give us a comic book cartoon of how one
column on the 12th floor could lead to something identical to a controlled
demolition for the first 105 feet of the collapse.

The failure of NIST to deal with the fact that WTC7 was a symmetrical
collapse makes it safe to assume NIST was concealing facts that
nano-thermate was involved in bringing down the entire World Trade Center
and they even had enough left to use at the Pentagon too.

Once more I don't have to prove nano-thermate exist because it is NIST that
has to give us a verifiable story that WTC 7 could come down the way it did
without nano-thermate.

Rocky

[Rocky]

<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ea134b35-0ee6-4d6c...@googlegroups.com...

Obviously NIST couldn't lie about everything especially since the videos on
their own website were used to prove WTC 7 came down at 100% free fall for
105 feet.

> I think this just goes to show you can't read a graph.

You are the one that can't read the following graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc7-nist1a-fig3-15.jpg

NIST own graph makes it very clear that their first real data point is at
1.75 seconds and then the black line they used doesn't even follow the dots
after 4 seconds because two of the dots are way above the line so NIST was
screwing with us in more than one way.

Man, I tell you. The worst part about proving that NIST has given us a
bunch of bullshit about WTC 7 is dealing with the lies and bullshit of those
that fell victim to the absolute bullshit from NIST.

Rocky

[Tony Dragon]

On 22/11/2012 22:39, Rocky wrote:
> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b18fcea1-8960-4197...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Except YOU can't explain where this mysterious "nano-thermate" which
>> (pre-911) was only a laboratory experiment came from.
>
> We know that both nano-technology and thermate were available long before
> 9/11/01 so why do you have to insist that nobody figured out how to get the
> two of them together in time of want?

Well you, with all your vast resources & contacts have not been able to
prove it's existence in quantity in 2001.

>
> Besides, the fact remains, NIST has never been able to explain, demonstrate
> with a working example or even give us a comic book cartoon of how one
> column on the 12th floor could lead to something identical to a controlled
> demolition for the first 105 feet of the collapse.
>
> The failure of NIST to deal with the fact that WTC7 was a symmetrical
> collapse makes it safe to assume NIST was concealing facts that
> nano-thermate was involved in bringing down the entire World Trade Center
> and they even had enough left to use at the Pentagon too.
>
> Once more I don't have to prove nano-thermate exist

Well if you claim it was used, you have to do just that, simple really.

[Tony Dragon]

So is it correct, that you are saying that the firemen were lying?

[Rocky]

<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0d669d6-6d8e-4190...@googlegroups.com...

Even though no steel framed building had ever collapsed because of fire
before those fire fighters along with a lot of other people knew WTC 7 was
going to fall straight down at 100% free fall for 105 feet? All you are
telling me is a lot of people knew about a controlled demolition before it
took place and I already knew that.

The facts remain:

1. The destruction of WTC 7 was unprecedented
2. The steel evidence was destroyed or unexplained
3. NIST's final theory followed years of failed hypotheses
4. NIST's final theory could not have been predicted
5. NIST's report is self-contradictory and contradicts other known facts
6. NIST's report is deceptive
7. NIST's final theory for collapse initiation is unscientific and false

Note: I have added remarks to each of the above below:

1. The destruction of WTC 7 was unprecedented

WTC 7 was the very first steel framed building to suffer a total
catastrophic failure because of random fires.

2. The steel evidence was destroyed or unexplained

NIST never explained what FEMA had in their Appendix C.

3. NIST's final theory followed years of failed hypotheses

In one of NIST attempts to lie about WTC 7 they didn't even prove that WTC 7

came down at 100% free fall for 105 feet.

4. NIST's final theory could not have been predicted

Yes, who would have thought that NIST would blame the total catastrophic
failure of WTC 7 on one column on the 12th floor losing it's lateral
support.

5. NIST's report is self-contradictory and contradicts other known facts

Proven by the fact there was no downward motion of WTC 7 until 1.5 seconds
after NIST claims WTC 7 started to collapse.

6. NIST's report is deceptive

Extremely so because they never addressed why WTC 7 was consistent with a
controlled demolition.

7. NIST's final theory for collapse initiation is unscientific and false

The test NIST ran proved they were lying but instead of letting us know
about the results of their test they just gave us comic book cartoon
graphics instead. And then those cartoon graphic from NIST still do not
explain the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 but nano-thermate can. <G>

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf

Rocky

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2012, 4:39pm (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)

<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b18fcea1-8960-4197...@googlegroups.com...
Except YOU can't explain where this mysterious "nano-thermate" which
(pre-911) was only a laboratory experiment came from.
We know that both nano-technology and thermate were available long
before 9/11/01

=======================

So where is your proof of this? Where is th evidence? You allegedely won
a court case without using a lawyer, so you MUST have an understanding
of what constitutes valid evidence- and "We know..." doesn't cut the
mustard. PROVE YOUR ASSERTION.
-----------------------------------

so why do you have to insist that nobody figured out how to get the two
of them together in time of want?
Besides, the fact remains, NIST has never been able to explain,
demonstrate with a working example or even give us a comic book cartoon
of how one column on the 12th floor could lead to something identical to
a controlled demolition for the first 105 feet of the collapse.
The failure of NIST to deal with the fact that WTC7 was a symmetrical
collapse makes it safe to assume NIST was concealing facts that
nano-thermate was involved in bringing down the entire World Trade
Center and they even had enough left to use at the Pentagon too.
Once more I don't have to prove nano-thermate exist because it is NIST
that has to give us a verifiable story that WTC 7 could come down the
way it did without nano-thermate.
Rocky

[george152]

Since controlled demolitions take weeks and sometimes even months to set
up with exclusion zones to keep people safe a lot of people know from
reading the danger signs as to what is happening.
The destruction of 7WTC met none of the controlled demolition criteria

[Rocky]

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

news:v_ednUTWEo7bJDPN...@giganews.com...

But nothing explains the consistencies between WTC 7 and a controlled
demolition better than a controlled demolition.

Don't forget that NIST never even tried to explain the consistencies between
WTC7 and a controlled demolition. Instead NIST relied on deception and more
deception to conceal facts that proved WTC 7 was consistent with a
controlled demolition.

> The destruction of 7WTC met none of the controlled demolition criteria

The Twin Towers were designed to fall before they were ever built. Why do
you think they really put all the supporting columns in one area?

And chances are that WTC 7 was also designed to fall as Padraigh thinks it
was.

Rocky

[Rocky]

"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:25500-50A...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...

>
> Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01
>
> Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2012, 4:39pm (EST-1) From:
> woo...@att.net (Rocky)
> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b18fcea1-8960-4197...@googlegroups.com...
> Except YOU can't explain where this mysterious "nano-thermate" which
> (pre-911) was only a laboratory experiment came from.
> We know that both nano-technology and thermate were available long
> before 9/11/01
>
> =======================
>
> So where is your proof of this? Where is th evidence?

Do not forget that nothing else explains why WTC 7 feel at 100% free fall
for the first 105 feet other than nano-thermate.

> You allegedly won

> a court case without using a lawyer,

To tell the truth, I was given that jury trial when the woman bringing
charges against me told a few big lies right on the witness stand. I just
made sure I won that jury trial 12 to 0 with the addition of exhibits, the
correct jury instructions and an objection to a statement made by the
prosecuting attorney during the closing remarks that would have prejudiced
the jury. See:
http://overprotectivemother.com/Coppula.htm

> so you MUST have an understanding
> of what constitutes valid evidence- and "We know..." doesn't cut the
> mustard. PROVE YOUR ASSERTION.

No need to because just like the jury trial I won NIST has blown their own
cover and you would see that if you knew why they have to resort to
deception. And once again:

1. The destruction of WTC 7 was unprecedented
2. The steel evidence was destroyed or unexplained
3. NIST's final theory followed years of failed hypotheses
4. NIST's final theory could not have been predicted
5. NIST's report is self-contradictory and contradicts other known facts
6. NIST's report is deceptive
7. NIST's final theory for collapse initiation is unscientific and false

Note: I have added remarks to each of the above below:

1. The destruction of WTC 7 was unprecedented

WTC 7 was the very first steel framed building to suffer a total
catastrophic failure because of random fires.

2. The steel evidence was destroyed or unexplained

NIST never explained what FEMA had in their Appendix C.

3. NIST's final theory followed years of failed hypotheses

In one of NIST attempts to lie about WTC 7 they didn't even prove that WTC 7
came down at 100% free fall for 105 feet.

4. NIST's final theory could not have been predicted

Yes, who would have thought that NIST would blame the total catastrophic
failure of WTC 7 on one column on the 12th floor losing it's lateral
support.

5. NIST's report is self-contradictory and contradicts other known facts

Proven by the fact there was no downward motion of WTC 7 until 1.5 seconds
after NIST claims WTC 7 started to collapse.

6. NIST's report is deceptive

Extremely so because they never addressed why WTC 7 was consistent with a
controlled demolition.

[Rocky]

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

news:Y56dnQlQA_IWLDPN...@bt.com...

> On 22/11/2012 22:39, Rocky wrote:
>> <edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:b18fcea1-8960-4197...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Except YOU can't explain where this mysterious "nano-thermate" which
>>> (pre-911) was only a laboratory experiment came from.
>>
>> We know that both nano-technology and thermate were available long before
>> 9/11/01 so why do you have to insist that nobody figured out how to get
>> the
>> two of them together in time of want?
>
> Well you, with all your vast resources & contacts have not been able to
> prove it's existence in quantity in 2001.
>
>>
>> Besides, the fact remains, NIST has never been able to explain,
>> demonstrate
>> with a working example or even give us a comic book cartoon of how one
>> column on the 12th floor could lead to something identical to a
>> controlled
>> demolition for the first 105 feet of the collapse.
>>
>> The failure of NIST to deal with the fact that WTC7 was a symmetrical
>> collapse makes it safe to assume NIST was concealing facts that
>> nano-thermate was involved in bringing down the entire World Trade Center
>> and they even had enough left to use at the Pentagon too.
>>
>> Once more I don't have to prove nano-thermate exist
>
> Well if you claim it was used, you have to do just that, simple really.

So you are saying because NIST can not explain why WTC 7 came down at 100%
free fall for 105 feet then I have to? That doesn't make sense because NIST
should explain why WTC 7 fell at 100% free for for 105 feet and not me.

NIST was paid for their total bullshit and you would see that they have used
bullshit if you were not so concerned with using bullshit yourself. The
facts remain:

1. The destruction of WTC 7 was unprecedented
2. The steel evidence was destroyed or unexplained
3. NIST's final theory followed years of failed hypotheses
4. NIST's final theory could not have been predicted
5. NIST's report is self-contradictory and contradicts other known facts
6. NIST's report is deceptive
7. NIST's final theory for collapse initiation is unscientific and false

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf

[Government Shill #2]

On Friday, November 23, 2012 1:39:28 PM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:

> So you are saying because NIST can not explain why WTC 7 came down at 100%

No... he is saying that if you make a claim it is up to you to support that claim.

--
Shill #2

[Rocky]

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

news:d02893f3-d9fa-4759...@googlegroups.com...

But my claim is based on the fact nano-thermate explains the catastrophic
and total collapse of WTC 7 and NIST didn't even try to explain it.

In the link below take a look at how many fires there were in WTC 5 and yet
it was still standing yet WTC 7 came down at 100% free fall for 105 feet?
NIST was messing with us.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf

Rocky

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2012, 7:46pm (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)

=============================

The design of the Towers was called "tube in a tube". The idea was to
maximize useable (leaseable) space. Unlike older steel-and-masonry
structures, the towers used a combination of an outer framework and huge
interal beams. he result was that 95% of interior space was availble to
produce revenue.

They weren't deigned to fall. Unless, of course, you have the documents.
Post them. Otherwise, stop lying.
----------------------------------

And chances are that WTC 7 was also designed to fall as Padraigh thinks
it was.

===========================

PROVE that's what I said, you lying sack of dogshit.
----------------------------------------

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2012, 9:35pm (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)

"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d02893f3-d9fa-4759...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, November 23, 2012 1:39:28 PM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
So you are saying because NIST can not explain why WTC 7 came down at
100%
No... he is saying that if you make a claim it is up to you to support
that claim.
But my claim is based on the fact nano-thermate explains the
catastrophic and total collapse of WTC 7 and NIST didn't even try to
explain it.

=======================

Except we now know this magic pixie dust didn;t exist outside
laboratories on 9/11/01.
----------------------------------

In the link below take a look at how many fires there were in WTC 5 and
yet it was still standing yet WTC 7 came down at 100% free fall for 105
feet? NIST was messing with us.
  http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf

==========================

BWAAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA!!!

kOOk-a-doodle-doo!

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2012, 8:00pm (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)

"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25500-50A...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01
Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2012, 4:39pm (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)
<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b18fcea1-8960-4197...@googlegroups.com... Except YOU
can't explain where this mysterious "nano-thermate" which (pre-911) was
only a laboratory experiment came from. We know that both
nano-technology and thermate were available long before 9/11/01
=======================
So where is your proof of this? Where is th evidence?
Do not forget that nothing else explains why WTC 7 feel at 100% free
fall for the first 105 feet other than nano-thermate.

=======================

IOW, you have no evidence. Thanks for clearing that up.
------------------------------------

You allegedly won
a court case without using a lawyer,
To tell the truth, I was given that jury trial when the woman bringing
charges against me told a few big lies right on the witness stand. I
just made sure I won that jury trial 12 to 0 with the addition of
exhibits, the correct jury instructions and an objection to a statement
made by the prosecuting attorney during the closing remarks that would
have prejudiced the jury. See:
  http://overprotectivemother.com/Coppula.htm
so you MUST have an understanding
of what constitutes valid evidence- and "We know..." doesn't cut the
mustard. PROVE YOUR ASSERTION.
No need to

=====================

IOW you have nothing. Thanks for clearing that up.
------------------------------

[Rocky]

"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:24640-50...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...

>
> > And chances are that WTC 7 was also designed to fall as Padraigh thinks
> > it was.

===========================

> PROVE that's what I said, you lying sack of dogshit.

Easy

WTC 5 complexly burned up but it kept standing.

WTC 7 had a few random fires but it raced a rock to the ground so it must
have been built to race a rock to the ground. DUH

See, all you have to do is a comparison with a building with many more fires
than WTC 7 that kept standing.

You can see photos of both WTC 5 and WTC 7 here:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf

Rocky

[Tony Dragon]

I would be very interested if you could quote where I said that, you
wont be able to as I didn't say it.

You know what I said< & you know what I meant, so don't try to dodge the
issue.

It's simple, you make a claim, you back it up.

<snip>

>
> http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf
>
> Rocky
>
>

[Tony Dragon]

Ahh so you say that nano-thermate did not cause the collapse of WTC7,
only that it could have caused the collapse.

Well as you have already agreed that it did not exist in quantity in
2001, we must deduce that it did not cause the collapse.

[Tony Dragon]

Please post the message where Padraigh said that.

[Tony Dragon]

So no proof then.

[joeturn]

On Nov 23, 1:51 am, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 23/11/2012 03:35, Rocky wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

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

> 2001, we must deduce that it did not cause the collapse.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You must not deduce anythin Tumi Dragin looking at this documentary
you can probably tell how long the towers were on fire before the th3
did its job.

http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/9-11-smoking-gun/

[edrh...@hotmail.com]

> Even though no steel framed building had ever collapsed because of fire
> before those fire fighters along with a lot of other people knew WTC 7 was
> going to fall straight down at 100% free fall for 105 feet? All you are
> telling me is a lot of people knew about a controlled demolition before it
> took place and I already knew that.

The fact remain;

The firefighters reported that the building "didn't look right" BEFORE the collapse.

The firefighters reported that there was a bulge between the 10th and 13th floor of the building BEFORE the collapse!

The firefighters reported that the building was "creaking and groaning" BEFORE the collapse!

None of those things are indicative of a controlled demolition. All of them are indicative of a building undergoing stress and threatening to collapse.

You say "no steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire." The Madrid Tower partially collapsed. The part that did NOT collapse had concrete in it's stress bearing structure. The part the DID collapse, was all steel.

Furthermore, it's not important whether the building was all steel or not. What's important is that the building lacked a proper foundation and that it was seen to be in bad shape well before collapsing.

[edrh...@hotmail.com]

> But my claim is based on the fact nano-thermate explains the catastrophic
> and total collapse of WTC 7 and NIST didn't even try to explain it.

But your theory depends on a substance which did not exist in the quantities required for the theory to work.

As such, it's as realistic as your "holographic planes" theory concerning the Towers.

> In the link below take a look at how many fires there were in WTC 5 and yet
> it was still standing yet WTC 7 came down at 100% free fall for 105 feet?
> NIST was messing with us.
> http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf

Can you show that WTC5 was built along the same lines as WTC7? Can you show that WTC5 was traumatized to the same degree that WTC7 was? No? If not, why would expect them to react the same just because they both had fires?

[Rocky]

<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34281d1d-ced3-4d3e...@googlegroups.com...

>
>> But my claim is based on the fact nano-thermate explains the catastrophic
>> and total collapse of WTC 7 and NIST didn't even try to explain it.
>
> But your theory depends on a substance which did not exist in the
> quantities required for the theory to work.

So? It still fits the facts whereas all NIST does is bury the facts.

> As such, it's as realistic as your "holographic planes" theory concerning
> the Towers.

WRONG. Flight 11 was an image added to a pre-recorded video and nobody has
been able to explain the disappearing wing of flight 175.

>> In the link below take a look at how many fires there were in WTC 5 and
>> yet
>> it was still standing yet WTC 7 came down at 100% free fall for 105 feet?
>> NIST was messing with us.
>> http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf
>
> Can you show that WTC5 was built along the same lines as WTC7? Can you
> show that WTC5 was traumatized to the same degree that WTC7 was? No? If
> not, why would expect them to react the same just because they both had
> fires?

We both know NIST can not explain the 100% free fall for 105 feet of WTC 7
but nano-thermate can.

Rocky

[francis]

> http://cotocrew.wordpress.com/2011/09/10/9-11-smoking-gun/- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Is that post available in English?

[Rocky]

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

news:7LednYvczKqOgTLN...@bt.com...

Your spinning because the fact remains NIST can not explain the 100% free
fall for 105 feet of WTC 7 but nano thermate can so until NST does a better
job we can assume NIST had a reason to bullshit us and that reason was 9/11
was an inside job.

[francis]

On Nov 23, 12:55 pm, "Rocky" <wook...@att.net> wrote:
> <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:34281d1d-ced3-4d3e...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >> But my claim is based on the fact nano-thermate explains the catastrophic
> >> and total collapse of WTC 7 and NIST didn't even try to explain it.
>
> > But your theory depends on a substance which did not exist in the
> > quantities required for the theory to work.
>
> So?  It still fits the facts whereas all NIST does is bury the facts.

So, your claims are wrong, they fall at the first hurdle.

>
> > As such, it's as realistic as your "holographic planes" theory concerning
> > the Towers.
>
> WRONG.  Flight 11 was an image added to a pre-recorded video and nobody has
> been able to explain the disappearing wing of flight 175.
>

It has been explained to you many time, did you not understand, or are
you a fool?

> >> In the link below take a look at how many fires there were in WTC 5 and
> >> yet
> >> it was still standing yet WTC 7 came down at 100% free fall for 105 feet?
> >> NIST was messing with us.
> >>  http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf
>
> > Can you show that WTC5 was built along the same lines as WTC7? Can you
> > show that WTC5 was traumatized to the same degree that WTC7 was? No? If
> > not, why would expect them to react the same just because they both had
> > fires?
>
> We both know NIST can not explain the 100% free fall for 105 feet of WTC 7
> but nano-thermate can.
>

Well nist did explain how WTC fell & it was not 100% free fall.

> Rocky

[Rocky]

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

news:wbmdndZkjKt4gTLN...@bt.com...

The fact remains NIST can not explain what happened to WTC7 and
nano-thermate can then we have to assume NIST lied to us for a reason.

In other words it is not me saying nano-thermate exist but NIST with their
total bullshit about WTC7 where they can not explain what happened to WTC7.

Rocky

[Rocky]

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

news:wbmdndFkjKsWgDLN...@bt.com...

Padraigh thinks WTC7 magically collapsed at 100% free fall for 105 feet and
that leaves two possibilities:

1. nano-thermate.

2. WTC7 was built to self-destruct at 100% free fall for 105 feet with
fires alone.

Since Padraigh rejects the nano-thermate reason that only leaves a building
that was built to fall at 100% free fall for 105 feet. Duh.

Rocky

[Rocky]

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

news:wbmdndBkjKsjgDLN...@bt.com...

NIST gave us the proof you idiot in the fact they could not explain what
happened to WTC 7 but nano-thermate can.

NIST claims because of one column on the 12th floor WTC 7 collapsed as a
"single unit." Then we can use the graph on page 46 to add that WTC 7
collapsed as a "single unit" at 100% free fall for the first 105 feet.

The fact remains NIST can not explain how one column on the 12th floor lead
to 8 floors of total failure where WTC 7 came straight down so fast there
was no time for gravity to do anything.

Again, it is NIST lack of explanations from NIST that give anybody the right
to say since NIST can not explain things and nano-thermate can then it had
to be nano-thermate. Duh.

Rocky

[joeturn]

> > Rocky- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Here it is posted in Brittish.

Winston the Churchill fell at 99.9% free fall speed.

According the pasengers of the lusitania Sir Winston Churchill devised
a plan to get their ally into the war so they could split the
prophets.Seems there were two empty passenger liners just sitting in
the area, prepared for the rescue,All of the passengers got off the
Lusiatania before the Brittish U-Boat sunk it and reap rewards for
keeping the lie a secret.The passengers that came forward still had
their promisary notes.Spell chech shit #2 it is of utmost impotence!

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2012, 11:50pm (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)

========================

No proof.

Can't show I said what you claimed I said.

You have just proven you are a pathologocal liar.

Get help, you moron.
--------------------------------

[Rocky]

"Spell check shit #2 it is of utmost importance!" Done

"joeturn" <joetu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c25347e1-fd4b-4085...@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

Here it is posted in British.

Winston the Churchill fell at 99.9% free fall speed.

According the passengers of the Lusitanian Sir Winston Churchill devised

a plan to get their ally into the war so they could split the
prophets.Seems there were two empty passenger liners just sitting in
the area, prepared for the rescue,All of the passengers got off the

Lusitanian before the British U-Boat sunk it and reap rewards for

keeping the lie a secret.The passengers that came forward still had

their promissory notes.

[Padraigh ProAmerica]

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Fri, Nov 23, 2012, 6:55am (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)

<edrh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:34281d1d-ced3-4d3e...@googlegroups.com...
But my claim is based on the fact nano-thermate explains the
catastrophic and total collapse of WTC 7 and NIST didn't even try to
explain it.

========================

It might be AN explanation, but this stuff didn't exist in the
quantities needed on 9/11/01. Enraged unicorns with sharpened
horns are just as likely. Find a new delusion, sad sack.
--------------------------------

But your theory depends on a substance which did not exist in the
quantities required for the theory to work.
So? It still fits the facts whereas all NIST does is bury the facts.
As such, it's as realistic as your "holographic planes" theory
concerning the Towers.
WRONG. Flight 11 was an image added to a pre-recorded video

=====================

BUL FREAKING SHIT, you pathological liar! PROVE IT. Citations and
explanations as to how ALL the videos were altered.
---------------------------

and nobody has been able to explain the disappearing wing of flight 175.

===========================

BULLSHIT! It's been explained to you multiple times but you are too
damned stupid to comprehend the weaknesses of NTSC video recording at
long visual distances.
---------------------------------------

In the link below take a look at how many fires there were in WTC 5 and
yet
it was still standing yet WTC 7 came down at 100% free fall for 105
feet? NIST was messing with us.

====================

Different types of cosntruction, numbass. Apples and oranges.
-------------------------------------

    http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf
Can you show that WTC5 was built along the same lines as WTC7? Can you
show that WTC5 was traumatized to the same degree that WTC7 was? No? If
not, why would expect them to react the same just because they both had
fires?
We both know NIST can not explain the 100% free fall for 105 feet of WTC
7 but nano-thermate can.

=========================

But since naothermate didn't exist on 9/11/01 in quantity, X-wing
fighters with proton torpedoes are just as likely.

Grow up and get a clue.
-----------------------------------
Rocky

[Rocky]

"Padraigh ProAmerica" <ogr...@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:24639-50A...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...

Re: Why nano-thermate existed before 9/11/01

Group: alt.conspiracy Date: Thu, Nov 22, 2012, 9:35pm (EST-1) From:
woo...@att.net (Rocky)
"Government Shill #2" <gov....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d02893f3-d9fa-4759...@googlegroups.com...
On Friday, November 23, 2012 1:39:28 PM UTC+11, Rocky wrote:
So you are saying because NIST can not explain why WTC 7 came down at
100%
No... he is saying that if you make a claim it is up to you to support
that claim.
But my claim is based on the fact nano-thermate explains the
catastrophic and total collapse of WTC 7 and NIST didn't even try to
explain it.

=======================

Except we now know this magic pixie dust didn;t exist outside
laboratories on 9/11/01.

=======================

So you know it exist now?

Well then that means it had to exist on 9/11/01 also because it fills in all
the tremendous gaps that NIST left in their NCSTAR 1A pdf as to why WTC 7
fell at 100% free fall for 105 feet.

Do not forget out of all your post you have failed to state why NIST says
WTC 7 fell at 100% free fall for 105 feet.

You have come up with your own ideas about WTC 7 fell so fast but you have
failed to state what NIST listed as the reason and if you looked you will
find they had no reason. So we are still left with the following:

1. The destruction of WTC 7 was unprecedented
2. The steel evidence was destroyed or unexplained
3. NIST's final theory followed years of failed hypotheses
4. NIST's final theory could not have been predicted
5. NIST's report is self-contradictory and contradicts other known facts
6. NIST's report is deceptive
7. NIST's final theory for collapse initiation is unscientific and false

And on top of all that NIST never explained how their alleged collapse
initiation could turn into a building falling straight down at 100% free
fall for 105 feet but nano-thermate explains it. <G>

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf

Note: I have added remarks to each of the above below:

1. The destruction of WTC 7 was unprecedented

WTC 7 was the very first steel framed building to suffer a total
catastrophic failure because of random fires.

2. The steel evidence was destroyed or unexplained

NIST never explained what FEMA had in their Appendix C.

3. NIST's final theory followed years of failed hypotheses

In one of NIST attempts to lie about WTC 7 they didn't even prove that WTC 7
came down at 100% free fall for 105 feet.

4. NIST's final theory could not have been predicted

Yes, who would have thought that NIST would blame the total catastrophic
failure of WTC 7 on one column on the 12th floor losing it's lateral
support.

5. NIST's report is self-contradictory and contradicts other known facts

Proven by the fact there was no downward motion of WTC 7 until 1.5 seconds
after NIST claims WTC 7 started to collapse.

6. NIST's report is deceptive

Extremely so because they never addressed why WTC 7 was consistent with a
controlled demolition.

7. NIST's final theory for collapse initiation is unscientific and false

The test NIST ran proved they were lying but instead of letting us know
about the results of their test they just gave us comic book cartoon
graphics instead. And then those cartoon graphic from NIST still do not

explain the symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 but nano-thermate can. <G>

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Ryan_Hartford_2.pdf

Rocky