Federal Grand Jury To Hear Evidence - World Trade Center 9-11 Was Controlled Demolition.

a reply to: neutronflux

Again, the second picture in that post is not melted lead and plastic many days later, still red hot.

Explain your argument beyond just stating it. Explain that picture with the excavator. More melted, dripping molten "paper"?

Days and WEEKS after the burn? Lead and plastic can do that? FFS

a reply to: tadaman

I did. You totally ignore this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nukes are so ridiculous.

One, there was nothing indicative of a nuclear blast.

Two, no evidence nukes placed under the towers.

Three. The bottoms of the core columns were cut from the WTC foundations to be removed.

Four, The collapse of the twin towers clearly stated at the point of jet impacts.

See video for WTC 2 collapse initiation in link below.



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...


Five. The cores for the towers fell last. The core offered resistance at the base of the twin towers.


www.skeptic.com...

The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.



Six. There is no indication of collapse initiation from the base of the WTC buildings up.
Read below link


A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
By Brent Blanchard
August 8, 2006
c-2006 www.implosionworld.com
www.implosionworld.com...


Seven, the slurry wall around the WTC foundation was not breached.

Eight, there is zero seismic evidence nukes were detonated under Manhattan islands.

Nine, how would the bedrock under Manhattan islands be stable enough to build new skyscrapers after three underground nukes were set off.

Ten, no indication a shockwave originated under the WTC.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

Again, the second picture in that post is not melted lead and plastic many days later, still red hot.

Explain your argument beyond just stating it. Explain that picture with the excavator. More melted, dripping molten "paper"?

Again, it was from the smoldering of combustible material. The process similar how buried burning would would make charcoal.

If the heat from the decay of fission products was making the 1,000,000 tons smolder for weeks then people would have died within hours arriving at the pile. To keep 1,000,000 tons hot, you would need a source like Fukushima.

a reply to: neutronflux

There WAS seismic activity. What are you even talking about? We are done.

That is not even debated. It's explain away as the buildings swaying with the impact. No one who FELT the shockwave agrees with you. There is even video evidence of the tremor.

You are alone.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

There WAS seismic activity. What are you even talking about? We are done.

That is not even debated. It's explain away as the buildings swaying with the impact. No one who FELT the shockwave agrees with you. There is even video evidence of the tremor.

You are alone.

I said there was no seismic evidence of a nuke detonating under Manhattan island.

a reply to: tadaman

So, you are down to misquoting and quoting out of context. Sad on you.

a reply to: neutronflux

Yes and I stated public knowledge about a mysterious tremor felt that was not adequately explained.

That would be evidence genius. And seismic activity all at once. Wow right?

a reply to: tadaman

I am sorry that the nuclear theory is totally based in fantasy in there is zero evidence, and is not supported by background radiation, not supported by seismic evidence, not supported by video evidence, not supported by the audio evidence, not supported by the base of the twin towers in that they offered resistance, and the twin tower cores’ fell last.

a reply to: neutronflux

So says you even though we just talked about all the evidence you refuse to acknowledge. That's not mine nor the fault of the evidence offered.

You just say things expecting them to be true.

I made an argument. You said no.

That's ALL you did. What I offered stands.

Negate it if you can.

No seismic activity, evidence of what I say?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

What's with all these first person accounts that say different?

At that point our building started to shake like an earthquake, just like shook, you wouldn’t believe being in a building this size that it could shake literally this much. The lights went out, and the shaking stopped. During the shaking, which lasted it could’ve been 15 to 30 seconds, which is a pretty long time." 

"I made it up onto the -- I guess you call it the concourse level, the mezzanine level, and onto the foot bridge when I started to hear -- I thought I heard an explosion of some sort, but I kind of dismissed it. I figured, ah, it's just something burning upstairs. I really didn't think of what was going on. Okay. I start going across this pedestrian bridge. I'm the only one on this bridge. I'm walking across it, and then I just remember feeling a rumble and hearing this rumbling sound that was really intense. It actually shook my bones." [Louis Cook -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)]

The above estimates of the shake's time period is far longer than the 10 seconds it took for WTC 2 to collapse. The video on this page shows a ground shake occurred ~13 seconds before the collapse of WTC 1. If you add the collapse time to this then the ground shake associated with the collapse of this building would have totalled ~22 seconds, therefore the above time estimates of WTC 2's ground shake may well be correct.

How do earthquakes happen via plane impact into a tower?

Before the impact!?

a reply to: tadaman

Again, you have not posted actual evidence. You rant.
One, nobody disputes the buildings caused the ground to shake. Video evidence of pieces of the building hitting the ground coincides in changes in seismic activity and changes in amplitude of the created surface waves known as Rayleigh waves.

Two. From the seismic evidence, there is not P and S waves indicative of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

Three, the seismic data does not support a nuclear detonation from under Manhattan Island in P and S waves are to weak, or right out nonexistent.

Four. Quote where the seismic evidence supports there was detectable ground shaking 13 seconds before the WTC 1 collapse? You are going by a hand held camera? By an excited person? Any evidence of a rising dust cloud? And visible structural failure at the base before the collapse initiation of inward bowing and buckling columns at the site of the jet impacts?

Again, there is no evidence a underground detonation caused the twin towers to fail from the ground through the foundation, up to the 80th or 90th floors.

Below is what actual evidence looks like. Notice the core columns fell last.

9/11 Footage shows core of both towers standing; Debunks Basement BombsTheory
m.youtube.com...

Core of WTC 1 momentarily standing after collapse
m.youtube.com...

WTC Collapses - Cores Visible
the-last-blog-left.blogspot.com...

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions
www.skeptic.com...
3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

With the exception of Chernobyl and Bhopal, the 9/11 attacks have affected the greatest number of people, with as many as 400,000 at risk for cancer, diseases, and mental-health illnesses, according to the World Trade Center Health Program. (This compares with 600,000 at Chernobyl and 500,000 at Bhopal, Lucchini found).

www.newsweek.com...


No evidence of radiation. Right. Thousands get cancer from dust and plane crashes

a reply to: neutronflux

Nothing of what you expect to happen during an underground detonation seems like it is well informed enough to just take your word on it.

That is a nice rant but does not disprove the theory offered nor does it support your counterargument of: "No!"

Are you well informed on subterranean nuclear explosions?

Yah?

So why not link to an actual nuclear weapons specialist and their detailed explanation of it, like I did.

Radiation doubt? Link to official medical professional citing radically increased cancer rates in 911 responders, like I did.

And so on.

Rant on and away official story man. This a conspiracy forum, just a reminder. Forgot?

Seismic data analysis

911review.com...

The Columbia University articles not linked which I simply read, you can too, go on to explain how most of the energy VIBRATED up the building and "rang it like a bell".

The air around the building had variable pressure and forced the energy (fireballs.) back into the structure.

Ten seconds, repeat, TEN seconds apart from the 2 recorded impacts, 2.1 and 2.3 I think, before those known seismic registers when the planes hit, there was a tremor.

Let's not forget, there is lots of sand over bedrock under Manhattan.

originally posted by: tadaman

With the exception of Chernobyl and Bhopal, the 9/11 attacks have affected the greatest number of people, with as many as 400,000 at risk for cancer, diseases, and mental-health illnesses, according to the World Trade Center Health Program. (This compares with 600,000 at Chernobyl and 500,000 at Bhopal, Lucchini found).

www.newsweek.com...


No evidence of radiation. Right. Thousands get cancer from dust and plane crashes

There was no indication of radiation above background at the WTC. There was no indication of contamination spread about Manhattan.

The fires at the WTC produced know chemicals carcinogens. Is that false.

Firefighters not exposed to radiation have a higher rate of cancers vs the general public.

Thyroid Cancer in Las Vegas Firefighters; Are We the Only Ones?
www.mpffu.org...

Other tests have provided solid foundation evidence that there are certain chemical exposures which can increase the apparent risk of thyroid cancer (Lope, et al, 2009). Even the most widely accepted medical treatments for some other cancers have now been shown to increase the risk of developing thyroid cancer as a subsequent primary disease (Curtis, et al., 2006). For Las Vegas Fire and Rescue, this project highlighted the need for further study into the potential causes of thyroid cancer, both for itself and for other fire departments and citizens as well. As of this writing, LVFR has nine personnel who do not have a familial thyroid cancer history, have not been excessively exposed to any known source of ionizing radiation, were not previously treated with radiation therapies, have not been exposed to any of the other known chemicals which might increase their risk, and yet all present with the same papillary form of thyroid cancer.

a reply to: tadaman

Yes, they did test for nuclear and biological weapons at ground zero. There was no radiation above background.

a reply to: tadaman

Thyroid Cancer Rates Are Skyrocketing From Flame Retardants
articles.mercola.com...

Studies: Firefighters at greater risk of cancer, disease
www.cecildaily.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

Link? Did they? Sure?

Link please.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's not limited to fire fighters

Or even just rescue personnel. Residents, workers and clean up crews.