This will answer 99% of your questions about 9/11.

I just clicked that it was the 11th of September.
My bus pass expires in 6 days.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: soulwaxer

And here we have another winner! Not only cancer rates, but the types of cancer typical for radiation poisoning.

Please do go into detail.


This must be some sort of smoking gun.

What types of cancers?

What is the correlation to even start suggesting its radiation that was released during the collapse or attack that caused this increase and not something else toxic that is found in building materials?

By the way folks, there is a huge difference between the amount of radiation released from an underground nuclear detonation, compared to an atmospheric one. And Dimitry Khalezov is very well placed to understand this.

and i guess you are not, hence why you need others to speak their minds and you just nod along to whatever you believe to be correct based on your biased views that have been manipulated by youtube videos that get posted over and over in threads like this to speak for the OP.

Seriously the only reason there are so many that think there is a conspiracy is because of what conspiracy theorist call every one else

Sheeple.

The only thing that has enough energy to produce what we saw on 9/11 (turning all that steel into fine dust) is a nuclear explosion.

and there it is


nothing more to say since there is no evidence whatsoever for steel turning to dust.

Just a low quality youtube video where the narrator points you to the last part of building that seems to turn to dust.

That is evidenec right there that so many 9/11 truthers are exactly what they call others

Sheeple

being herd by .... at least the normal sheeple not awake and that watch the MSM are lead by some sort intelligence not some idiot in his basement with a webcam.

A BIG one, in this case 77 meters underground. 150 kilo-tons. That's what caused the huge 100 meter diameter cavity with the molten rock surrounding it. (see the photos in the pdf)

I guess you have never seen an underground detonation.

If there was an underground detonation under the trade centers the area above the detonation ( i assume would be directly under) would have be obvious.

It wouldn't bring 1 building , then another a bit later and then another hours later.

The building would be seen to go up in all the footage as the grounds is forced up and then back down and then collapse into the cavity.

However just having 1 building collapse at a time just shows ignorant of critical though such a claim is.

Sorry but on the day there was nothing like this.

No.

A 150 kilo-ton explosion deep underground in GRANITE, results in an underground cavity with a diameter of 100 meters (that's the length of a football field). You will find that one side of one twin tower was 64 meters. The reason that this cavity is formed is because the granite turns into GAS under EXTREME pressure. Do you have any idea how much energy is needed to cause a 100 meter diameter sphere of granite, buried in granite, to turn into a gas? Outside of this 100 meter cavity, there is a zone where the granite is compressed into itself, except where there is no granite (vertically, in the direction of the tower above it). This left over energy is what caused the towers to turn into DUST, up to nearly the top of the tower. Above that, there is a small zone where the tower is broken into small pieces, but not dust. Above that, there is a small piece of the tower that remains intact. This is the piece that we saw falling down into the "dustified" part of the tower at near free-fall speed. Same thing happened with WTC 7, with the big difference that this tower is only 47 stories, and so the "dustified" zone reached all the way to the top.

That's it in a nutshell. More specifics and the science behind this can be found in the pdf.

soulwaxer

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: soulwaxer

prove the bomb was there

Well, we all know where that will go.... nowhere.

Whoever argues that a nuke was used on that day is either trolling or delusional.

a reply to: soulwaxer

This one is out of complete ignorance

What caused the underground fires at ground zero to burn for more than 3 months?

Do you understand how much nuclear fuel and nuclear reactions would have to be present to keep 1,000,000 tons of rubble “smoldering” hot for up to 3 months. You are talking more nuclear fuel present than what was in the melted fukushima reactor. People would be dying in hours after working the pile at the WTC.

Not years later from carcinogens like asbestos and benzene.

The pile was smoldering because the pile had burning flammable materials trapped during the collapse. The pile had gaps fresh air could work into as the spent atmosphere was heated and rose. The same process that was once used to make charcoal.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: soulwaxer

In order to fully understand this, you need to understand how a nuclear bomb is triggered to explode, and for that, I refer to the video, the pdf, and google.

Now we are at the point where things start falling apart. Not just this CT, but many.

Instead of having a discussion about what you know, as the OP and presenter of evidence, it is now incumbent on me (the reader) to 'educate myself' on things that you think I'm clearly ignorant of.

The point being that you/they know everything and is unshakeable, yet the reader is clueless and ignorant and there is no bridge meant to be had in this discussion.

How can you know all and anyone not convinced by any margin be completely in the wrong? Do you not see the hubris in this?

No, I don't

soulwaxer

originally posted by: dfnj2015
What I don't understand about 9/11 is why people are so hung up on the official story. Why is it so outrageous to suggest the terrorists were capable of rigging the buildings for demolition. The evidence clearly supports controlled demolition. What difference does it make how the buildings were brought down?

Why is the official explanation so important is mind boggling to me. NIST is clearly fudging their results by not making their computer models public. At some point, just like JFK, the investigation will be reopened.

I think the other way around, why is the official report so unbelievable for many is so mind boggling to me.

I look at these conspiracy theories and apply a simple test to them that deals with logistics and complexity and in ever case they spiral out of control.

Even with the case of controlled demolition, why do we need it in the first place and how would they get the timing and starting points of the collapses perfect when we are talking random impact points.

As I said before with the second tower collapsing first tells us a lot about all that extra weight above the lower impact point and how the AC caused the collapse. No timing is needed with the AC scenarios, but unbelievable timing would be needed in the controlled demolition scenario.

The logistics part is the massive support to rig the buildings in the first place...not an easy quick task but once again needed to be perfect and zero people ever coming forward.

I don't believe in perfection much less multiple layers of it for success.

originally posted by: soulwaxer
Just a heads up here.

As I predicted in my OP, this thread is being FLOODED by some very familiar members, on a Tuesday during working hours in the US, with the very familiar tactics.

There is a reason for that. Can anyone guess what that reason might be?

soulwaxer

Is that same reason you posted this thread?


anyone can take a guess at that as well.


Its Wednesday 3am for me.


Just shows how dumb some claims and suggestions can be when one only absorbs BS and doesn't try smelling it to see if really does smell.

If you are expecting me to keep up with your constant firing of questions at me, you are obviously not going to be accommodated. I can only type so fast. Hence my pointing to the pdf.

No I explained why you keep pointing to the PDF.


Its becoming very clear that you are asking readers to read something you haven't.

with the very familiar tactics.

yes,

its read this or watch this.

when more than half the time the poster asking readers to do so hasn't done it themselves yet defends their source and says its all in there, just have a look at my 5 hour video and 1000page doc.

And you know very well that 9/11 was waaaay too complex to explain in a couple of posts in this thread. If you don't want to watch the complete video or read the pdf, then you do not have the will to know what really happened.

please stop proving my observations correct.

answer some questions, or just 1 that suggest you have read this or watched the video.

Like I said in a post above, there is a huge difference between an underground nuclear detonation and an atmospheric one. VERY HUGE DIFFERENCE. They were forced to make a choice...

yes there is


why wasn't it seen in the footage of the 2nd collapse?

It would be plainly obvious an underground Nuke went off, especially something the size you suggest.

Sorry OSOTC, but your tactics will not work on me.

yes question about things you post that you cannot answer because if you do chances are you will be exposed, hence this template replies about tactics and shills and how they will be ignored because..

well they to close to showing most readers that the OP is full of ..... an hasn't read or doesn't understand what they have

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: one4all
a reply to: soulwaxer


@ 24:44 of the video I realised something....could the Aluminum from the planes have been used as a component of thermite...if the rest of the ingredients and needed catalysts were already inside the building....makes me wonder if they painted the inside of the building with the other ingredients besides aluminum needed to produce or enhance thermite or its reaction and accomodated the process.

No.

The only thing that has enough energy to produce what we saw on 9/11 (turning all that steel into fine dust) is a nuclear explosion. A BIG one, in this case 77 meters underground. 150 kilo-tons. That's what caused the huge 100 meter diameter cavity with the molten rock surrounding it. (see the photos in the pdf)

soulwaxer

WOW,

Slowly backs out of thread........

Wow, giving up so soon? Great! bye

soulwaxer

Well, with your claim of a 150kt weapon bringing down the towers, there is little point in trying to be rational.

The "Dog" test, during operation Greenhouse was an 81kt device.

Test: Dog
Time: 18:34 7 April 1951 (GMT) 06:34 8 April 1951
(local) Location: Island Runit ("Yvonne"), Enewetak Atoll
Test Height and Type: 300 foot Tower
Shot Yield: 81 kt

The explosion lifted 250,000 tons of soil to an altitude of approximately 35,000 feet.

Source

You expect me to take someone serious, who believes a device nearly twice the size of the Dog device was detonated beneath the WTC, and yet it was "covered up"??

LoL, did they use 2 150kt bombs, one for each tower?

Your example was an atmospheric detonation. The ones under the WTC were 77 meters below the surface, in VERY HARD granite rock. Do I really need to school you on the difference in resistance between air and granite?

soulwaxer

LMAO, someone sure needs schooling. Ever heard of the Baneberry incedent?

A 10kt, yes 10kt, not 150kt, was detonated 270 meters, YES, 270 meters, not 77 meters underground.

On 18 December 1970, the Unites States conducted the Baneberry underground test at the Nevada Test Site. Although the 10 kiloton device was detonated at 270 metres below the surface, a large cloud of radioactive dust was released into the atmosphere.

Source

Do you have ANY idea the size of a crater you would have detonating a 150kt device at 77 meters deep?
Here you can figure it out for yourself.

Zones in surrounding rock
Name Radius[26]

Melt cavity 4–12 m/kt1/3
Crushed zone 30–40 m/kt1/3
Cracked zone 80–120 m/kt1/3
Zone of irreversible strain 800–1100 m/kt1/3

Source

Take notice it is calculated in "zones in surrounding ROCK"

Please stop.

a reply to: soulwaxer

This is absolutely ridiculous

A 150 kilo-ton explosion deep underground in GRANITE, results in an underground cavity with a diameter of 100 meters (that's the length of a football field). You will find that one side of one twin tower was 64 meters.

How was the WTC slurry wall left intact.

How was every foundation in lower Manhattan not ruined.

How was there no waves generated off Manhattan.

There is absolutely no seismic evidence of the detonation.

Your fantasy fails on so many levels.

I'm out time now and have things to do. I answered as many questions as I could, while they were rapidly being fired at me. Obviously I can't answer them all at once, which seems to be expected by some. What do you want me to do, quote the whole video and pdf? Thanks for showing your true colours once again!

To the more realistic members who are sincerely interested, again, I point to the sources I supplied. Every single question that was asked here and more will be answered for you. No-one is forcing you to watch/read it. But I know there are those with enough passion for truth who actually will do so. You will not be disappointed.

My aim was obviously not to prove everything in the source material provided by me. My aim was to provide you with that source material and to give an idea of what questions are answered in it, and to give you the opportunity to learn A LOT.

Thanks for reading!

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

This left over energy is what caused the towers to turn into DUST, up to nearly the top of the tower.

Not sure how to respond.

can you show just one piece of evidence showing this steel turning into dust?


was it the video I mentioned?

This is the piece that we saw falling down into the "dustified" part of the tower at near free-fall speed.

ahh so it was that video.

Same thing happened with WTC 7, with the big difference that this tower is only 47 stories, and so the "dustified" zone reached all the way to the top.

I take it you haven't seen any footage of the day other than one video where you think there is some steel turning into dust.


Building 7 tuning to dust all the way up?

I saw it collapse not turn to dust.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Nobody is saying don’t question, but....

Why does adding truth movement to BS give charlatans the right to exploit 9/11?

a reply to: Fallingdown

We should embrace the truth about 9/11 especially today. Nothing disrespectful about that.

Thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families.


a reply to: soulwaxer

Without watching the video, I can tell you that some of his theories are incorrect.

There were definitely aspects or individuals within our government which were involved.

Nano-thermite was found at the site and it has no business being there so its strange that he or anyone else would dismiss it.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Nano-thermite was found at the site and it has no business being there so its strange that he or anyone else would dismiss it.

Please cite what test was conducted that shows WTC dust could support a thermite reaction.

Please cite what independent lab the dust samples were released to, to verify thermite in the WTC dust to complete the discovery process for the paper claiming thermite.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Thanks for saving from wasting my time lol

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: Fallingdown

We should embrace the truth about 9/11 especially today. Nothing disrespectful about that.

Thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families.


a reply to: soulwaxer

Without watching the video, I can tell you that some of his theories are incorrect.

There were definitely aspects or individuals within our government which were involved.

Nano-thermite was found at the site and it has no business being there so its strange that he or anyone else would dismiss it.

I'm sure that not ALL of his theories are correct. He discusses an AMAZING amount of aspects of 9/11, and leaves practically no stone unturned. So there are bound to be some mistakes. He is also not afraid to speculate about some details, and clearly points out exactly where that is the case. But in general, I have a great respect for the amount of, and the depth of the research he has done. (That alone tells me he is not in this to make money.) He obviously has a passion for truth, and he has an incredible gift for logical thinking.

Yes, there were indeed a few individuals of your government involved or at least in the know, which Khalezov points out himself by the way. One of them was probably Donald Rumsfeld. Almost all of the rest were tricked by "the powers that be".

As far as the technical aspects of the destruction of the towers, I am now 100% convinced that the cause was underground nuclear demolition. There is no refuting what he claims in this regard. All the pieces fit together, which is not at all the case with the well known conspiracy theories. And I'm not going to "prove" everything myself in this thread, for obvious reasons, as some here seem to expect.

About nano-thermite. It was "found" by Dr. Steven Jones 7 years after 9/11. That alone should raise some eyebrows. There were, however, most likely conventional explosions used, to simulate the holes made by the "planes" in the buildings, and probably also elsewhere. This, however is not the main point of his analysis, and these are relatively unimportant details in the overal scheme of things. His expertise is in detecting nuclear detonations, world-wide. This, along with his access to very important classified information (such as the nuclear demolition schemes built into the buildings) and to key individuals makes him a witness, not a conspiracy theorist.

The reason I am totally convinced of the technical aspect of what he proposes, is the sheer amount of energy needed to turn all that steel into those massive clouds of microscopic dust turning Manhattan into the apocalypse. No one will ever convince me that that was done with conventional explosions, including thermite and "nano-thermite". No way in hell! I design and build houses in bricks, concrete and steel, and I have a pretty good feel for the strength of these materials and structures. Most people don't have a clue about how strong the WTC towers were built and the size and amount of steel that went into them, let alone the structural design.

soulwaxer

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

If there was an underground detonation under the trade centers the area above the detonation ( i assume would be directly under) would have be obvious.

It wouldn't bring 1 building , then another a bit later and then another hours later.

The building would be seen to go up in all the footage as the grounds is forced up and then back down and then collapse into the cavity.

However just having 1 building collapse at a time just shows ignorant of critical though such a claim is.

Sorry but on the day there was nothing like this.

There were 3 detonations, one under WTC 1, one under WTC 2, and one under WTC 7.

Granite is very hard, much harder than other types of rock, or sand in a dessert! The granite under Manhattan is especially hard, which is one of the reasons all those skyscrapers weighing millions of tons were built on top of it (more than 1 million tons for WTC 1 and 2).

Why the hell is it ignorant to design the demolition scheme so that only one building collapses at a time. You do realise that detonating 3 nukes close to each other at the same time is going to cause a lot more damage to the foundations of surrounding buildings, don’t you? Who’s ignorant here?

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

Your one of those guys that ignores reason and pushes reasonable comments off with long posts. While you push pseudoscience.

Now,

How was the WTC slurry wall left intact.

How was every foundation in lower Manhattan not ruined.

How was there no waves generated off Manhattan.

There is absolutely no seismic evidence of the detonation.

Your fantasy fails on so many levels.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: notsure1
Ive said it before . I want to believe the OS but the whole no cameras at the pentagon thing make my BS sensors max out.

It was the 21st century and this was the Pentagon for christs sake.

In 03 or 04 there was local girl who got kidnapped from Target . They had video of her car pulling in the pot then video of his car pulling in the lot.

They had video of her walking across the parking lot and into the store then video of him walking through the lot and into the store.

They had video of her walking around the store and video of him stalking her.

video of both of them leaving. then video of him grabbing her in the lot, then video of him driving out of the lot with her.

This was at Target for christs sake, but the PENTAGON had no camera.

Yeah thats some bull caca right there.

Does one really need to explain how retail stores operate and what keeps them operating and what may hurt their business and why they install surveillance?


Why would the Pentagon need HD cameras filming the buildings surroundings?

What logical purpose?

The cameras that were there were there and had a purpose.

It seems that Americans or fanatical conspiracy theorists are upset because they cannot get the simple reason why what they think should be happening wasn't and isn't.

how about in case of a terrorist attack? And seeing how is was after the OKC federal building bombing they would have made sure to take as many precautions as they could.

But you keep believing what the gov and the media tell you because they would never lie.

The FBI The CIA CNN the Potus would never ever lie.

a reply to: soulwaxer

The answer to all your questions is this...

Everything that happened in your questions is not the way you are told it did happen.