What to expect if the 9/11 truth bomb does drop

a reply to: Salander

Sure there is one poster at ATS who accepts and defends the official story--Neutronflux. Have you not followed his 'reasoning'?

Pointing out your theory of nukes at the WTC is totally void of evidence and is entirely based on pseudoscience from truth movement charlatans is defending the official narrative?

Wanting to know the below is defending the “official” narrative?
While the real and serious questions are, What ties did the terrorists have. Who helped them financially, get in the country, and help them stay in the country. Why was the gross negligence of protecting this country whitewashed with little consequence for those in charge. Why were the towers built to minimize cost by minimizing concrete usage. Why did the WTC have deficient fire insulation.


What do you not get after 17 years plus there is no proof of WTC CD. And those that claimed to have proof of CD have had thier pseudoscience exposed and debunked year after year.

What’s it like Salander to have faith based on WTC CD olny founded on pseudoscience, falsehoods, photos out of context, no video evidence, misquotes, and quotes out of context? To be fully debunked year after year for 17 plus years?

Or would you like to cite credible evidence for nukes at the WTC? Or is this where you change the subject to WTC art projects? Or post about dancing Jews? Or exploit those sicken by toxic chemicals from WTC dust as victims of radiation poisoning with absolutely no evidence there was radiation above background at the WTC?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Salander

Yes - there is an awful lot of both conditions on here.

As a Brit I am not really that well up on the various 9/11 theories but one thing I never really understood was why the 3rd building collapsed?

Same reason the towers collapsed. Damaged structure suffered further damage from fire until it collapsed under its own weight when it could no longer support it.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Thanks - as I said, I am not that well up on this but how was the structure damaged and how did the fires start - it was not hit by either of the planes?

Genuine question, sorry if this has been discussed before.

a reply to: oldcarpy


The third building collapsed for the same reason the other two did--there were explosives in place.

a reply to: Salander

Stop that. It's silly.

a reply to: oldcarpy


Yes, silly for its simplicity, in the style of Occam thanks very much.

Have you managed to answer your own question? Why did the third building fall down at free fall rate?

a reply to: Salander

a reply to: Salander

Have you managed to answer your own question? Why did the third building fall down at free fall rate?

Not yet.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: oldcarpy


The third building collapsed for the same reason the other two did--there were explosives in place.

Based on what evidence?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
Thanks - as I said, I am not that well up on this but how was the structure damaged and how did the fires start - it was not hit by either of the planes?

I've posted this pic quite a few times but it shows the relative locations of the buildings so well



WTC7 is that smaller reddish brown building behind the north tower (viewed from south side of WTC)
It suffered considerably in the collapse of the WTC1 tower and the cause of the fires, well that's uncertain but there were backup diesel generators and fuel tanks inside the building. Not just at ground level either and the upper level gensets had 'day tanks' at their level so they could start & run without working fuel pumps downstairs.

Couple all that with the lack of firefighting water and the building was going to have a very bad day indeed.

a reply to: Pilgrum

Thank you. That makes much more sense now.

a reply to: oldcarpy

WTC was 350 feet north of Tower 1 (North) The south face, one that faced WTC 1, was slashed open for some 20
stories. FDNY member reported on this and fact that debris was falling off building

The FDNY sent men in to search the build, discovered that the standpipes supplying water were dry . Inside was considerable structural damage - elevators were dislodged from shafts

Also found fires breaking out on numerous floors from burning debris from WTC 1. When reported to Incident commanders
made decision to abandon WTC 7 - building was empty and without water and working elevators was too dangerous to risk
men inside

WTC 7 was abandoned after 1200 pm and personnel still inside were evacuated

When collapse unit from Rescue 3 arrived, used a transit fixed on point of building to watch for signs of collapse

By 230 found that building was moving and 3 story bulge forming in southwest corner

Chief Nigro made decision to set up collapse zone around WTC 7 at 3 PM and pull all men away from building
(actually heard orders being passed down on radio)

At 520PM WTC collapsed from effects of damage and fire

a reply to: Salander

Sure there is one poster at ATS who accepts and defends the official story--Neutronflux. Have you not followed his 'reasoning'?

Great

you just lied and anyone reading can read anyone's posts and see for them selves.

Neutronflux in this very thread asks questions that show they don't support the "official story" in full, they were the question I said you conveniently ignore to keep up whatever agenda you have.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

If he or you were interested in further discussion on specific points, I would be happy to play along for the sake of discussion.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale

If he or you were interested in further discussion on specific points, I would be happy to play along for the sake of discussion.

Then produce some evidence of your pet theory of nukes at the WTC. Or is this where you shamelessly parade those truly suffering illnesses from the chemicals in the WTC dust falsely as victims of radiation poisoning.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: oldcarpy


Yes, silly for its simplicity, in the style of Occam thanks very much.

Have you managed to answer your own question? Why did the third building fall down at free fall rate?

Old Billy wouild be spinning in his grave at you dreaming up nukes when a simple gravity driven collapse can explain the events

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale

If he or you were interested in further discussion on specific points, I would be happy to play along for the sake of discussion.

Great

why don't you?


Will you address them?


I take it your next reply will ask to show you these questions.

Try page 6, first post.

Especially the question about the gross negligence of protecting this country whitewashed with little consequence for those in charge.

Officially all over the news for days and weeks afterwards I remember numerous persons, Condi Rice and others in the inner circle of the Bush admin saying that they had no warning, no ideas that anyone would use planes as weapons.

I would love to see you address questions like that,

over the years you and posters the likes of you conveniently ignore those types of question to push holograms, nukes and space weapons.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

As Thomas Kean , chairman of 911 commission put it - "failure of imagination" ,,,,,,

Mr Kean, a Republican, spoke of a failure "of policy management, capability and above all imagination; on that September day we were unprepared. We did not grasp the magnitude of a threat that had been gathering over a considerable period of time."

FBI and CIA were too wrapped up in their own agenda to care

Witness the political machinations of the FBI and CIA in the 2016 election ……..

a reply to: InhaleExhale

How many died on 9/11 due to the attacks? How many died that never came back home from Vietnam?

More pertinent would be to ask. How many died in Iraq (a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 911) due to the collapse of the twin towers.

How many civilians died in Vietnam. The deaths of the soldiers pales into insignificance in comparison.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: InhaleExhale

How many died on 9/11 due to the attacks? How many died that never came back home from Vietnam?

More pertinent would be to ask. How many died in Iraq (a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 911) due to the collapse of the twin towers.

How many civilians died in Vietnam. The deaths of the soldiers pales into insignificance in comparison.

I have no clue what you trying to say.

I was responding a posters saying most Americans were not affected by the Vietnam war.


Forget about civilian deaths for the sake of what I was trying to point, not in general so as to not misinterpreted as me being extremely cold hearted, I was pointing out that quite a few Americans were in fact severely effected by the Vietnam war by asking what I did.


Was Iraq invaded due to 9/11?

No,

Rumsfeld from day 1 I believe was trying to pin it on Saddam having a hand in it but on the end they had to come up with a different BS story to get troops in there.


Focusing on civilian deaths of the wars of the last century and this century should be enough to wake the sleeping giant but it seems unity in humans to stand up against governments wanting war is easily manipulated by the divide and conquer technique especially now with the abundance of information that floods our minds from numerous sources.