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

a reply to: mrthumpy

Would it change your mind?

The official story, and that includes the demolition of the buildings, was declared bankrupt and void years ago, more or less the same time the heads of the government commission told the media (and surprisingly the media actually printed it) the commission was set up to fail.

Some of us understand and have moved on, others are still stuck in September 2001.

a reply to: Salander

There have been quite a few examples, all around the world, of buildings burning for much longer times and not collapsing. I think it was somewhere in South America that happened and the building was eventually put back into service.

In those "quite a few" examples you have in mind that you are saying could be made in comparison,


What started the fires in those buildings compared to the twin towers?

Or along with nukes are you also insinuating holographic planes?

a reply to: Salander

You

For 911 official story to be true, the laws of physics would have to be suspended for the day. Modern high rise buildings do not suffer such collapses from fire.

It was 2001, not 1901.

Then why are high rise steel framed buildings required by code to have the steel insulated. Why is it impossible for a steel framed building to buckle due to fire?

It’s a fact. the WTC had deficient fire insulation.

It’s a fact, the WTC had long floor spans with no mid length supports which was not a common construction practice.

It’s a fact, the WTC buildings minimize concrete load bearing supports beyond what was common construction practice.

To claim the WTC buildings were built to what was common practice, and compare them to buildings built to what was common practice is deceitful.

Below is a link to a thread with a video showing the inward bowing and buckling of WTC 2 that initiated collapse. Funny what you deem impossible is right there in the video record with zero evidence the collapse was initiated by planted pyrotechnics or nukes.

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

a reply to: Salander

By the way.....

How you coming along on coming up with citing sources, the dates, context, and the actual quotes for your below claims?

As Coroner Miller said after walking through the field there, debris consistent with a wrecked airliner could not be found.

Just as Coroner Miller said, there was no wreckage in that field that suggested an airliner had crashed there.

Is your whole narrative based on falsehoods? Is your silence just conformation you make up crap?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

Would it change your mind?

It would give Truthers a point when they keep bringing it up. As it stands it's just another pointless line they keep mindlessly parroting thinking it sounds clever.

I take it you haven't got an example

I do not think anything will go down if incontrovertible truth about 9/11 ever made it onto the MSM. Nineteen years have passed since that awful day, and so many theories have been expounded that the event has become clothed in the same shroud as the conspiracy for who killed JFK. It has become something in that it would be nice to know, if just to scratch the itch of wanting to know, but nobody is going to do anything. Knowing will not change society, or make politicians honest.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Nineteen years have passed since that awful day, and so many theories have been expounded that the event has become clothed in the same shroud as the conspiracy for who killed JFK.

For the twin towers, there are multiple videos from various angles capturing the initiation of collapse. The clouding comes from a truth movement with the inability to police itself from charlatans preying off peoples fears and ignorance for personal gain. Like individuals pushing fizzle no flash bombs, thermite paint, nukes, or Dustification? There is no credibility to those “theories”. Concerning the twin towers, what truth movement “theory” should I take serious? The thermite study that never completed the discovery process, never had its samples released for independent verification, and other testing never could confirm. Or the WTC 7 Evaluation and modeling project on tract to never be released under the conditions as advertised making the donations taken under false pretenses?

The truth movement is riddled with charlatans and snake oil salesmen back with people with no discernment for truth or real science. Just running off pure emotion.

a reply to: neutronflux

It’s a fact. the WTC had deficient fire insulation. 

It’s a fact, the WTC had long floor spans with no mid length supports which was not a common construction practice. 

It’s a fact, the WTC buildings minimize concrete load bearing supports beyond what was common construction practice. 

Yeah, I agree with you that it seems pretty obvious they prepared for this False Flag even as the towers were being designed.

Silverstein & Co got the building insured 2 months before the attacks and the plan, I believe, paid double in the case of a terrorist attack, but we know for certain Silverstein won his court case regarding the insurance settlement in which he wanted it to count as TWO separate attacks, since 2 planes hit two different buildings, hours apart, so even though it was the same terror group responsible, it was still two seperate "incidents", or to use the insurance industry/legal lingo, two seperate "occurances". Which, yeah, from a legal standpoint, that makes sense. There was no guaranteeing that the 2nd plane was going to hit its mark, and when it did, that was a successful 2nd attack. Maybe ... MAYBE... if the planes had struck simultaneously, or within less than a few minutes of eachother, it could be considered one attack. Maybe.

Fortunately for Silverstein, the hijackers couldn't get two planes closer together. They had to hit one tower and hope that wouldnt bring any additional scrutiny while their other teams boarded their respective planes. For some reason that plan was preferred rather than 2 planes hitting simultaneously for extra psychological effect. Or 1 plane hitting, and the other one hitting like approximately a minute and a half to 3 minutes later. So, just as people are able to process what just happened, IT HAPPENS AGAIN. Those were not considered to be the best plans for some reason.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Silverstein lost money.

Silverstein & Co got the building insured 2 months before the attacks and the plan, I believe, paid double in the case of a terrorist attack, but we know for certain Silverstein won his court case regarding the insurance settlement in which he wanted it to count as TWO separate attacks, since 2 planes hit two different

a reply to: 3n19m470

Nice conspiracy fantasy …… You think this all by yourself

Reason Silverstein got insurance with terrorism clause is because the people putting up the money demanded he get such
insurance, considering the buildings was bombed in 1993

Silverstein wanted to insure them for 1 billion, investors wanted 5 billion, settled for 3.55 per building

Another thing, Silverstein was not the winning bidder. That was Vornado Real Estate . But they could not come up with the financing .. Silverstein could

This thread is a story contest entry in the making.

a reply to: 3n19m470

What are you rambling about. False narratives and innuendo.

Can you point to actual physical evidence planted pyrotechnics brought down the twin towers. There is video of columns bowing inward and buckling. Any video of a actual columns being cut? There is no audio with any evidence of explosions detonating with the force to cut steel columns. No evidence of any shockwaves from explosions with the force to cut steel columns. No splintered steel from columns supposedly cut by detentions recovered from the steet, near by buildings, the injured, and not recovered with human remains.

Then the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was initiated at the areas of the jet impacts. Impacts and fires that would have destroyed any controlled demolition system making it impossible to initiate the collapse of each tower by CD.

originally posted by: mrthumpy

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

Would it change your mind?

It would give Truthers a point when they keep bringing it up. As it stands it's just another pointless line they keep mindlessly parroting thinking it sounds clever.

I take it you haven't got an example

Well twitchy and slander can't come up with any examples. Any Woke Truthers who have Done Their Research think of one?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

No, the airplanes were real, but they were not American 11 and United 175.

That the authorities refused public examination of the flap track assembly found years later at the Burlington Coat Factory shows how real they were, and how important it was to keep it secret so that the true origin of the piece could not be discovered.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Answering my own question, no, it would not change your mind.

The average person who still believes the official narrative 18 years later does not want to know the truth. As Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men" noted, that person simply cannot handle the truth. That's what cognitive dissonance is all about.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: InhaleExhale

No, the airplanes were real, but they were not American 11 and United 175.

That the authorities refused public examination of the flap track assembly found years later at the Burlington Coat Factory shows how real they were, and how important it was to keep it secret so that the true origin of the piece could not be discovered.

To come to that conclusion you have to ignore the bulk of the eyewitness, radar data, DNA evidence. Nice to see you buy in to the lies of the truth movement.

a reply to: Salander

Answering my own question, no, it would not change your mind.

.

No. There is zero evidence of planted pyrotechnics in the video, audio, physical, seismic record of the WTC.

The average person who still believes the official narrative 18 years later does not want to know the truth. As Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men" noted, that person simply cannot handle the truth. That's what cognitive dissonance is all about.

The above has nothing to do with zero evidence of planted charges at the WTC. CD systems for the twin towers that would have not survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of the towers at the areas of jet impacts.

Nice to see you using the same false narratives.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: mrthumpy

Answering my own question, no, it would not change your mind.

The average person who still believes the official narrative 18 years later does not want to know the truth. As Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men" noted, that person simply cannot handle the truth. That's what cognitive dissonance is all about.

Hear hear my good sir!

Cue the neutronflux Circus as proof positive.

a reply to: Salander

HEY, i'm still waiting for an answer (from Neutronflux or anyone else) as to why the USA invaded the wrong countries after 9/11. You are wasting your time talking to some posters here as you can probably see. Let them be the KING in their own world, we all know what the objective is...

originally posted by: openedeyesandears
a reply to: Salander

HEY, i'm still waiting for an answer (from Neutronflux or anyone else) as to why the USA invaded the wrong countries after 9/11. You are wasting your time talking to some posters here as you can probably see. Let them be the KING in their own world, we all know what the objective is...

What does that have to with zero evidence of controlled demolition and Architects and Engineers pushing false narratives.

That’s as bad as Salander equation rumors of dancing Jews as evidence the WTC was brought down by nukes.

So what conspiracy fantasy should I find credible?

Fizzle no flash bombs?
Thermite paint or ceiling tiles?
Jet holograms with missiles and/or lasers?
Nukes in the bed rock?
Dustification?