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

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

The slurry wall was damaged in two places. There is an infographic in the pdf you can check. These places correspond with where the detonations under WTC 1 and WTC 2 occurred. The water that seeped through at these spots was continually being pumped up during the later stages of the clean-up and in preparation for the repair of the slurry wall, which was necessary before construction of the new project could start. It is all explained in the pdf. Don’t be lazy, and use the index in the pdf to find a complete explanation of this.

The foundations of a few buildings surrounding the WTC complex WERE damaged, one or two of them beyond repair, leading to the tearing down of said building(s). I don’t remember which ones, and I’m not going to look it up for you, but this too is shown in the pdf, which you are too lazy to consult.

No waves generated off Manhattan: Don’t know if there were or weren’t, but I don’t particularly find that an interesting question since we are talking about detonations deep underground in granite. I certainly wouldn’t expect a tsunami…

Seismic evidence: Oh yes, there is plenty of seismic evidence. You can find it in the pdf.

Thanks for your very insightful reply…

Soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

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.

for the beginning of this quoted above its very reasonable,

However, how do you interpret questions from numerous posters as them needing them answered immediately?

I think you see post like mine where I point out my observation and give my suspicion that every reply to just about any direct question about the claims or what the actual claim is, are replied to with "read the kink" "watch the video" which raise suspicion that you haven't done so yourself or worse you are purposely pushing disinfo and using words like "tactics" to describe questions to hide your own tactic of trying to reverse just about everything into a shill vs truth seeker debate.

You wont actually discuss the contents of the stuff you are pushing or answer any questions about it.

and its others that use tactics when they ask questions?


So what is one assume or suspect after reading your thread and replies?

What do you want me to do, quote the whole video and pdf? Thanks for showing your true colours once again!

You just have actually


No one asked such complex questions that couldn't be answered or shown at least where in the video or document the answer could be found.

Why cant you do this?

you haven't read or watched?

or you have and think you understand it simply because it felt right (gave you that awake sensation when you watched the video, those mind blowing sensations) but fail to realize how far off from reality some of things claimed are and need confirmation so this is why you post this but wont answer questions, just hope you get confirming posts you can reply like this quoted below?

Nice to see someone with his mind still open, and without an agenda!

a very quick response to a post that sort of confirms your belief.

almost instant reply or if its to their earlier post then just a few minutes later to give a confirming post a thumbs up.



Just one question about the turning to dust of the buildings and 3 buildings means 3 nukes obviously.


you sort of tried to describe how it happened but it makes no sense when you watch the 2nd tower come down from the many angles available.

Even the first when it collapsed had cameras all over it.


both would be the same sized nukes for the twins right? or all 3 were 150KT?


lets just ask about the twins,


the same sized bomb underneath.

How does the same designed bomb make the same designed building start collapsing from the points where the planes crashed into the buildings which were different for the 2?



are they magic nukes?


so many follow up questions

how did the ones responsible know how big a bomb to use and how deep to place it?

There must have trial and error tests done to see if any calculation done are correct before its actually done.

Where and how is this done, build twin 100 floor buildings and test nukes under them?

if the first attempt doesn't work and you need to adjust size of bomb and depth

How many towers and nukes were tested and built for this?

If you decide to even entertain any of these questions just for yourself please don't try answer them by the misinterpreted missing trillions Rumsfeld mentioned the day before many conspiracy theorist like to point out to explain financing the tests required to get it right.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Your response is really ridiculous.

We will just go with this

Seismic evidence: Oh yes, there is plenty of seismic evidence. You can find it in the pdf.

False argument. Nobody said the collapsing towers did not cause seismic events.

The seismic evidence does not contain the right seismic activity that would be indicative of underground nukes setting off. Underground nukes would create recordable seismic activity around the world. Not just isolated to the region.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Dude your entire opinion on this has been destroyed.

I can’t speek for everyone but I personally have a lot more respect for a member who holds their hands up and admits to being wrong rather than just bury their head in the sand.

Perhaps you might want to at least consider you might be wrong about this guy.

a reply to: notsure1

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.

you mean for instance that a truck like in OKC pulls up to the building and detonates?

No precautions?

No bomb proofed windows?

no reinforced walls?

How is a camera precaution and prevention of a terrorist strike?

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

what lies?

what beliefs?


what the hell does the media and government have to do with basic critical thought?

there is surveillance from multiple sources in the area

If the Pentagon shared its car park with a department store that depended on financial gain that is hurt by theft then maybe we would have had good footage of the plane coming in and hitting.

the building was protected,

there was no need for more cameras at the Pentagon.

yes, fair enough OKC,
the cameras that are at the Pentagon would capture a car or truck driving up to the building quite well and have many shots and stills available from the footage because of its speed.

a plane moving at 500 miles an hour and coming in from above is quite different.

the air space above all of the US and other countries are monitored,

how are more cameras or better cameras supposed to help with anything other than to be used as argument in a conspiracy theory that when you really think about makes very logical sense.


Yes for investigation of something as large as this one would be much better off with good clear footage,

looking at it from a government point of view,

Cameras wont prevent a terrorist attack but may help investigating

there being already a terrorist attack on a federal building more cameras wont do squat but reinforcing the building may help prevent more death and injury if one does happen.

the area around has a lot of footage and if the terrorist was in a car or truck then 1. the Pentagon cameras would pick them up even though they are crap to capture planes flying at 500 miles an hour and 2. the surrounding businesses would also have caught some footage.

So if it was like the target scenario, a person in a car, on the ground moving at a speed that is nor getting close to the speed of sound then there would be heaps of footage.

If the lady at target was abducted by something moving at 500 miles an hour and it came in from the sky where the target cameras don't point do you think she would have been found with the footage available?

originally posted by: stosh64
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.

Yes, I have an idea.

First, about the melt cavity, which Khalezov calculated at about 100 meters in diameter in the case of the detonations under the WTC towers. Your wiki page chart shows nothing about the type of rock… but just for fun we will use the calculation higher up on your page anyways, which also says nothing about the type of rock, while claiming yet higher up on the page that this is a contributing factor (so much for the quality of this wiki page):

From your source:
“The radius r (in feet) of the cavity is proportional to the cube root of the yield y (in kilotons),r = 55 *y1/3”
Thus: a yield of 150 kilotons will create a cavity with a radius of 292,23110652505 feet.
That is exactly 89,72 meters. So the diameter wil be 179,44 meters. Taking into account the hardness of the granite in Manhattan, the difference of 79,44 meters can easily be justified.

Now turn your lazy ass to page 342 of the pdf linked in my OP, and read down to 347. When you are done, you will be informed of the fact that the situation of a nuke buried at such a depth that its melt cavity ends just below the bottom of one of the WTC towers (at 27 meters below the surface) is quite different from the situation described on your wiki page concerning nuclear detonations at the Nevada Test Site. I won’t go into ALL the details, but you should wise up quite fast upon reading what an expert in this field has to say. So please do.

soulwaxer

originally posted by: soulwaxer
I won’t go into ALL the details, but you should wise up quite fast upon reading what an expert in this field has to say. So please do.

soulwaxer

Lol, expert in this field.

Again, lol.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: notsure1

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.

you mean for instance that a truck like in OKC pulls up to the building and detonates?

No precautions?

No bomb proofed windows?

no reinforced walls?

How is a camera precaution and prevention of a terrorist strike?

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

what lies?

what beliefs?


what the hell does the media and government have to do with basic critical thought?

there is surveillance from multiple sources in the area

If the Pentagon shared its car park with a department store that depended on financial gain that is hurt by theft then maybe we would have had good footage of the plane coming in and hitting.

the building was protected,

there was no need for more cameras at the Pentagon.

yes, fair enough OKC,
the cameras that are at the Pentagon would capture a car or truck driving up to the building quite well and have many shots and stills available from the footage because of its speed.

a plane moving at 500 miles an hour and coming in from above is quite different.

the air space above all of the US and other countries are monitored,

how are more cameras or better cameras supposed to help with anything other than to be used as argument in a conspiracy theory that when you really think about makes very logical sense.


Yes for investigation of something as large as this one would be much better off with good clear footage,

looking at it from a government point of view,

Cameras wont prevent a terrorist attack but may help investigating

there being already a terrorist attack on a federal building more cameras wont do squat but reinforcing the building may help prevent more death and injury if one does happen.

the area around has a lot of footage and if the terrorist was in a car or truck then 1. the Pentagon cameras would pick them up even though they are crap to capture planes flying at 500 miles an hour and 2. the surrounding businesses would also have caught some footage.

So if it was like the target scenario, a person in a car, on the ground moving at a speed that is nor getting close to the speed of sound then there would be heaps of footage.

If the lady at target was abducted by something moving at 500 miles an hour and it came in from the sky where the target cameras don't point do you think she would have been found with the footage available?

Thats is all so stupid the camera s at target would have picked up a plane in the parking lot.

LOL. Do you think they have cameras now? And why do they?

originally posted by: dothedew
But what about muh 9/11 Omission report, with data from a board of 12 Federal Employees that contradicts science and physics? What about muh Popular Mechanics magazine?

God, I love people who believe ridiculous theories with zero evidence that require completely absurd leaps of logic, then turn around and call the people who believe actual trained and educated scientists with actual evidence the dumb ones. The irony is fantastic...

a reply to: notsure1

a reply to: notsure1

I swear it's like you deliberately try to sound as dumb and uneducated as possible. In which case, congratulations. You're succeeding admirably.

originally posted by: soulwaxer
a reply to: dfnj2015
Nice to see someone with his mind still open, and without an agenda!

By the way: Jordan Peterson is genius material, all of it, so another

!



soulwaxer

Lol. The guy who has clearly decided that it was a conspiracy and calls anybody who believes otherwise delusional (which is endlessly ironic) is the one with an open mind? The guy who has made up his mind already no matter what the evidence says? That's your idea of open-mindedness?

a reply to: soulwaxer

- How could the wings of aluminum planes (let alone the rest of the aluminum planes) cut through massive double-walled 2-inch thick steel beams?

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

- What penetrated several walls of the Pentagon and left a nice round hole in each of those walls, and especially WHY?

- Why was the Sears tower in Chicago evacuated and not the Empire State building in New York?

- Why were fighter jets sent towards the Atlantic Ocean and not towards New York city?

- Why did the South tower, which was hit after the North tower, “collapse” first?

- What made the first responders and clean up crews sick years after 9/11?

- Why were so many cars around the World Trade Center burned in such a strange way (half burned), and why were most of them police cars?

- Why did the collapse of WTC 7 look so different from the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

- Why did Larry Silverstein admit that WTC 7 was “pulled”?

- What was the secret service guy doing in WTC 7, as seen in the following video?

1. Plane did not cut the columns - it snapped them apart at weakest points, the welds and bolts connecting column sections

Exterior columns were composed of 30 ft sections made up of columns held together by welded spandrel plates, which
were then bolted together

911justicehalifax.files.wordpress.com...

Here is section knocked out of WTC lying in street - piece of landing gear embedded in it

sites.google.com...

2. Underground fires - office furniture, carpets and paper, lotsa and lotsa paper from 110 story building

3. Pentagon - American 77 only penetrated one substantial wall, the outer E Ring which was made of unreinforced
brick covered by façade of limestone masonry, The small exit hole in C ring was caused by pieces of landing gear
which travelled through building. There is no interior wall (D ring) on 2 lowest floors

4 Empire State Building - have to ask building management why did not evacuate, it was their call. Then again most people have already left after seeing what happened

5 Fighter jets - were dispatched to military holding area off coast until more information collected to give definite target
Jets from Langley were dispatched NZE to Atlantic because that id what they normally did, intercept Russian aircraft too close to coast, Nobody gave them directions

6. South Tower - It collapsed first because was hit by aircraft travelling much faster than other aircraft, faster = more impact energy. Also got lower, greater mass above impact

7. Illness among first responders caused by inhalation of toxic smoke and dusts. Dust had PH of 12, like sniffing Drano, contain asbestos, glass, toxic metals along with smoke from burning plastics contain dioxins

8 Cars were burned by burning debris from WTC building landing on them, igniting plastic trim , Reason many were police
cars is most people don't drive in Manhattan, take bus/subways. Most of the vehicles on street are delivery and police
When WTC hit, police converged on scene for rescue

9. WTC 7 - different construction , Also collapse started from interior when column collapsed

10 Silverstein did not admit WTC 7 was pulled - was responding to FDNY fire chiefs who told him was being abandoned and collapse zone set up

11 Secret Service had offices in WTC 7 - contained equipment and weapons used during visits by president and foreign leaders to New York

a reply to: soulwaxer

Your ridiculous. How would the detonation of the nuclear devices not be detected by stations worldwide that monitor for underground nuclear detonations.

The WTC on an island on granite, and the blast shockwaves didn’t fracture the rock resulting in a massive sink hole. Especially if the rock had fault lines or flaws in its composition. Like no upper strata of rock to support the roof of a cavity created by the blast. Then build a new WTC over the cavity, with no evidence of an unstable cavity below. Like in sinking the new pilings and foundations. Or the structure of the WTC reflecting pools. Or the havic an underground detonation would cause on the subway system.

A detonation you are proposing should not make a few leaks in the slurry way, it would fracture the whole wall into failure from the seismic shockwaves.

Again. You pseudoscience is pure BS.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Khalezov is "guano loco"

Underground blast - OPERATION PLOWSHARES

en.wikipedia.org...

SEDAN Burst of 104 KT

Highest level of fallout released

en.wikipedia.org...(nuclear_test)

Of all the nuclear tests conducted in the United States, Sedan ranked highest in overall activity of radionuclides in fallout. The test released 880,000 curies (33 PBq) of radioactive iodine-131, an agent of thyroid disease, into the atmosphere.[10] Sedan ranked first in percentages of these particular radionuclides detected in fallout: 198Au, 199Au, 7Be, 99Mo, 147Nd, 203Pb, 181W, 185W and 188W. Sedan ranked second in these radionuclides in fallout: 57Co, 60Co and 54Mn. Sedan ranked third in the detected amount of 24Na in fallout. In countrywide deposition of radionuclides, Sedan was highest in the amount of 7Be, 54Mn, 106Ru and 242Cm, and second highest in the amount of deposited 127mTe.[9] While Sedan ranks highest in percentages of Au-198 detected, it is not the most prolific generator or gold-heavy design that was tested by the US, due to the explosion being far more well contained, a larger quantity, referred to as a "a goldmine" of (Au) was used extensively in the W71 warhead,[11] that was proof-tested in 1971 within a deep borehole in the Amchitka islands off Alaska.

Assessment of the full effects of the Sedan shot showed that the radioactive fallout from such uses would be extensive.

a reply to: soulwaxer

You do understand a basic fact of seismology is that epicenter depth is calculated for seismic events. All WTC seismic data is that of a surface event, not a event from under Manhattan.

a reply to: smkymcnugget420

Exactly my thoughts. What happened after 9/11 should be enough to make us realize who perpetrated it. Money, blood, oil, poppies, control. May all those who perished on or since that day rest well. We will never forget those souls.

a reply to: neutronflux

Neutron....baby hello mate

Time for a neutron. flush.. where's that silver handle

Gonna flush his neutrkn azz down the same spot they sent HAL 9000/

a reply to: Fallingdown

This is conspiracy website.

Maybe you should go back to REDDIT.

originally posted by: Maroboduus
a reply to: notsure1

a reply to: notsure1

I swear it's like you deliberately try to sound as dumb and uneducated as possible. In which case, congratulations. You're succeeding admirably.

Yeah you dont do it deliberately you just dont realize how dumb you are..

Like you soulwaxer, I have a conspiracy theory of my own.

You're evidently articulate, intelligent and have put considerable work into this thread. Yet your theory appears highly improbable on its face and when you're asked to provide basic supporting evidence (like the claimed recordings of high radioactivity) you offer nothing.

Based upon these simple facts I conclude that your purpose is to distract, confuse and exhaust those new to this subject by mixing credible evidence which undermines the official accounts of 9/11 with nonsense.