Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: madenusa

That link to 911truth is pandering to people who don't want to bother looking into the truth.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: madenusa

That link to 911truth is pandering to people who don't want to bother looking into the truth.

It's odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.

There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11.
In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously – and in virtual freefall.
This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades.
This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds.

This method is called controlled demolition......this is what I will tell my children and grandchildren
This is all talk and no results. they can control the masses this way.
Example....
A debate that will rage on forever with hardly any change happening.

a reply to: madenusa

Can't be explosives either, I want to believe what the happy gap-filling crowd says! Perfect timing for the other posting btw, especially with regards to the other reply after yours...

Anyway. Let's go with the Toldya (TM) then. A little insider from my dutch friend in the other thread, but it's basically an alien disruptor beam invisible to the human eye and capable of weakening steel cores to the point of zero resistance.

a reply to: madenusa

It's odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers.

You must have been watched different video the I did.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine

As you're still asking what's the point I will have to put it simple: every theory needs evidence to be considered valid if you're up to follow the scientific mindset. Right? If you discard this actual piece from the OP you'd also have to laugh about that nisty report, as it simply lacks the physical evidence for the 'office fire weakened steel' hypothesis. The question remains: why don't you?

Agreed to disagree on the Nist-report interpretations of my cousin then. It's obviously a piece of art as different people tend to see different things within that masterpiece. And I'd agree. It's a perfect piece of bad art in desperate need of first aid, otherwise we probably wouldn't find ourselves in an A&E topic dealing with another study regarding this literally explosive hypothesis.

If "every theory needs evidence to be considered valid if you're up to follow the scientific mindset" and there is no evidence for explosives or other means of demolition but only evidence for impacts followed by fires, one should consider that damage from impacts and fires are somehow the causes until proven otherwise.

Hopefully one day we'll find out the truth.

a reply to: pteridine

... the hardness evaluation suggested that there was no detoriation of the mechanical properties of the materials as a result of exposure to pre-collapse fires.

That's what the Nist-report stated, no evidence for your pre-collapse fire theory. Bummer, innit?

one should consider that damage from impacts and fires are somehow the causes until proven otherwise.

Somehow... right.
Except there's justified objection to this sentiment, as it's just another subjective opinion. The burden of proof applies the same pressure on all theories, doesn't it? Which is why you're meddling with double standarts in thin air, just saying.

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian

originally posted by: Salander
Nice story by Europhysics News. Yes, no question that burning office fires could not possibly have caused all the damage observed at WTC, could not have caused the towers to collapse as they did.

Though thermite must have been used in some capacity, the only theory that explains all the observed damage, including the human sicknesses, is the nuclear theory.

His being a nuclear physicist of some sort, I cannot help but wonder if Jones is trying to steer away from the obvious signs of nuclear events there.

I long ago got tired of this whole debate, because I figured out the answer after finding this amazing researcher:

Jef f Prager - Nukes

Yes, I've read Prager's work. IMO the nuclear theory is the only theory to explain all the damage observed at WTC. To apply Occam, the reason WTC looked like a nuclear bomb went off there that day is because there were nuclear bombs, devices of some sort, that went off.

a reply to: Salander

is because there were nuclear bombs, devices of some sort, that went off.

What floor did they go off on?

originally posted by: Salander
IMO the nuclear theory is the only theory to explain all the damage observed at WTC. To apply Occam, the reason WTC looked like a nuclear bomb went off there that day is because there were nuclear bombs, devices of some sort, that went off.

It is so funny when truthers start arguing with each other about their own silly pet conspiracy theories.... you have some claiming anyone pushing nukes is a disinfo agent trying to make all truther conspiracy theorists look bad, then you have another truther ignoring that and pushing nukes!

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander

is because there were nuclear bombs, devices of some sort, that went off.

What floor did they go off on?

Jeff (who I know personally) thinks every 10 floors. I think from the video evidence it was every three or so. They were inside the core which explains the core turning into smoke and micronized dust (no way thermite could have done that, although it may have been used to weaken some of the beams in the basement).

There is NOTHING else known (a required caveat, since military hardware research is unknown to us) that could have taken out those buildings in the manner shown on video to the world and that matches with the evidence from the days later. The 'fires' as they were called was residual fission. Somehow OS supporters think 'office fires and paper' would get hot enough to melt steel... with little to no oxygen supply and with millions of gallons of water being poured on the pile. Even the blue smoke rising from the pile in photographs is tell-tale for a nuclear event. A special radiation-absorbing chemical was ordered immediately and thousands of gallons of it was applied to the pile, and the diggers went through a complex boot and clothes washing procedure every night before they went home. Exactly what you'd do if you knew you had radiation exposure, except basics like other protective gear was not provided. More murder.

The government KNEW - from the beginning.

And we've had first responders and NYC residents dying from, in some cases, multiple carcinomas, many of them rare and associated greatly with radiation exposure. Of course, there was massive amounts of pollution otherwise in the dust and the EPA had declared the air 'safe to breathe', just another obvious lie from the government. I suppose that's the only thing they lied about, though...

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Salander
IMO the nuclear theory is the only theory to explain all the damage observed at WTC. To apply Occam, the reason WTC looked like a nuclear bomb went off there that day is because there were nuclear bombs, devices of some sort, that went off.

It is so funny when truthers start arguing with each other about their own silly pet conspiracy theories.... you have some claiming anyone pushing nukes is a disinfo agent trying to make all truther conspiracy theorists look bad, then you have another truther ignoring that and pushing nukes!

Why are you here? For YEARS you've been pushing the same meme.

THIS is how the truth is revealed - honest discussion, research and debate. There was never a kneejerk debunker (the 'Amazing' Randi and his ilk) who figured out what was going on with any number of the anomalies and mysteries; you, sir, are the one who is silly.

And wasting your time because your brain was long ago closed to new information and consideration.

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
Why are you here?

To deny ignorance, not embrace it like truthers do!

For YEARS you've been pushing the same meme.

THIS is how the truth is revealed - honest discussion, research and debate.

Well, as we have seen truthers are not interested in debate, just pushing their silly conspiracy theories.

Oh look!

An eight inch nuclear weapon from 1957 with a variable yield!

Something the kneejerk debunkers said was impossible! They think nuclear means Big Boom with mushroom cloud and Manhattan gone!

Think they kept on researching them until they got them even smaller, with a limited radiation signature and a yield perfectly dialed to the diameter of, say, a 200 foot across building, so as to damage surrounding buildings as little as possible?

en.wikipedia.org...(nuclear_warhead)

"debate, just pushing their silly conspiracy theories."

Too bad you wouldn't know the difference.

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
I think from the video evidence it was every three or so.

So you think over 70 nuclear bombs went off in WTC 1&2..

Have you ever stopped to think how stupid that claim is?

Somehow OS supporters think 'office fires and paper' would get hot enough to melt steel...

Where exactly does the OS claim steel was melted?

This is another thing truthers do, make up crap about the OS!

Even the blue smoke rising from the pile in photographs is tell-tale for a nuclear event.

Your valid source for that claim is what exactly?

A special radiation-absorbing chemical was ordered immediately and thousands of gallons of it was applied to the pile,

What is the name of this chemical?

and the diggers went through a complex boot and clothes washing procedure every night before they went home.

Your source for that is what exactly?

And we've had first responders and NYC residents dying from, in some cases, multiple carcinomas, many of them rare and associated greatly with radiation exposure.

Your source for that claim is what exactly?

This is something else truthers like to do, make claims but are unable to back them up with any valid source!

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
An eight inch nuclear weapon from 1957 with a variable yield!

Something the kneejerk debunkers said was impossible!

Please show exactly where anyone said it was impossible!

a reply to: SentientCentenarian


The no instant deaths from radiation resulting from a nuclear fission reaction, no contamination and radiation from specific fission products, the no spread of contamination by first responders / people working with the debris. Has nothing to do with 1957 nuke. Has everything thing to do with no proof of a nuclear reaction.