It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 06:26 PM

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: micpsi

he went back and edited it didnt he?

What post would that be?

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 06:28 PM

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: neutronflux

so you know what kind of explosion that picture shows?

It doesn’t mater when the seismic, video, audio, columns still firmly standing in the WTC foundation, and collapse initiation does not support underground nukes. Period.

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 06:31 PM
a reply to: neutronflux

whats wrong with you?
i have just offered you 1100 pages of rebuttal.
you wont look at any of it, doesnt matter what i write.
you dont read it or answer me anyway.
you worked for your potato today huh?

edit on 4-1-2019 by username74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 06:34 PM
a reply to: neutronflux

so what kind of explosion is it?

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 07:18 PM

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: neutronflux

so what kind of explosion is it?

Why would I care when you cannot give an example of how any explosion could detonate under the WTC without somehow making bedrock too brittle to build on, did not breach the slurry wall, did not dislocate core columns from the foundations of tower 1 or 2, did not cause any visible dust cloud rise from the ground, with no evidence of a shockwave or vibration running up the towers from the epicenter of the blast, with no dust being shaken from the towers’ facade, no visible building deformities running up the towers, with no wave of broken windows running up the buildings, but somehow a blust rushing out of the ground caused inward bowing isolated to only one or two stories some 80 or 90 floors above ground cause isolated portions of vertical columns to buckel inward to initiate a collapse. A collapse that caused the upper portion of the towers to fall into the buildings below. A collapse that caused the total failure of the floor systems that left core columns standing in the wake of their collapse to have the core columns topple in last.

Your claimed explosions that you cannot cite any video evidence that should show some force traveling up the towers to initiate the collapse at their recorded origions which is on video.

Definition of explosion


1A violent shattering or blowing apart of something, as is caused by a bomb.
‘three explosions damaged buildings at the barracks’
‘an explosion of methane gas’

What ever you claimed happened as an “explosion” should have clear effects capture on video radiating out of the ground up the towers.
edit on 4-1-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed.

edit on 4-1-2019 by neutronflux because: Forgot link to def

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 07:42 PM
a reply to: username74

How do you define explosion?

Another definition of explosion

National Fire Protection Association

NFPA 921 – 23.1.4 Definition of an Explosion
“Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria for an explosion.”

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 07:49 PM

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: neutronflux

so what kind of explosion is it?

It's in that steaming pile of 'rebuttal' you linked to
What it is, is a pic of the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing and the author is trying to claim this can only be a nuclear explosion because it produced a mushroom cloud which is utter bollocks as some of my limey friends would say.

The rest of the material shows a similar standard of logic and amounts to fanciful fiction at best.

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 08:32 PM
a reply to: username74

Just for example – a 150 kiloton yield deep underground nuclear explosion could vaporize enough rock to create a cavity of up to 100 meters in diameter (50 meters in radius). Though, this cavity will be created not only by the actual disappearance of the rock, but also as a result of an additional expansion of the cavity by the high pressure of the vaporized rock in gaseous form inside the cavity seeking to expand the cavity to every direction."

The SEDAN test blast , a 104 kt shot to test if nuclear weapons could be used to excavate things like canals

It spread fallout over much of the western US

So where is the radioactive fallout …????

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 09:00 PM

originally posted by: neutronflux
Said the conspiracist........

On a conspiracy website, in a forum titled 9/11 Conspiracies. Imagine that. Sometimes I don't really know why some members join. Hah! Just kidding, I totally do.

a reply to: kwakakev

I don't know that I'm feeling this DarkOverlord thing. I was originally under the impression that they were releasing this info if their ransom wasn't met by the involved parties. Now it seems they're releasing it piecemeal if everyday Joe Schmo contributes to the ransom? WTH is that? Meh. Great if it's real, but it's just gotten weirder than it already was.

posted on Jan, 4 2019 @ 09:41 PM
Overall it is good to hear some views on just what might happen should the documented truth on 9/11 come out. With all that has come out so far and no real visible action taken, why should we expect much?

It has not been surprising that there is still a lot of discussion about what did happen. It is a tough and confusing journey at times trying to sort out the facts from the fiction on this one. To help thoughts stuck in this information quagmire here are a couple of sign post for you.

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 02:11 AM
To those of you who continue to answer the questions put forth in the OP, bravo. Keep it up. People are reading and considering what you write, so it is having an impact.

To all who are attempting to engage in discourse and dialogue in this thread, do not lose heart because of a few posters who will attempt to derail any conversation that is not lockstep with the official narrative. We all know who they are, and we all know that their presence in threads such as this are why ATS is considered by many internet denizens to be slipping down the slope as being nothing more than a COINTELPRO psyop to further the “official narrative” by any means necessary.

This is a “conspiracy” site, is it not? Ever wonder why any discussion of conspiracy is met with ad hominem attacks and ridicule?

So much for denying ignorance.

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 02:52 AM
a reply to: Thejaybird

Try not to be too hard on them, those that do stand by the official story do have an important role to play. They did motivate me to look a lot harder and deeper into all of the events surrounding this world changing situation. Some of them also have a lot of knowledge about where to look. If anything substantial is to come out of these discussions, then it must be able to withstand tough secrunity and account for the public perception we have been presented with.

I would be surprised and worried to have an ATS that did not try and attack every little piece of evidence that came along. It is ok to disagree and think for yourself. I know it can be frustrating and feel like talking to a brick wall at times, but this is only a small representation of these beliefs amongst society at large. When your only source of information has been the mainstream media, that you trust, there are a lot of brick walls out their. There is already some big information out there to bring down some of these walls. Having the political will to bring down the rest is lacking.

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 05:36 AM
a reply to: kwakakev

You need to be wary with all the 'doctored' pics floating about on the net and that first one (the firemen) has been the subject of much controversy. The Pentagon pic doesn't appear to present a problem so I'm not sure what issue anyone could have with it.

I can't imagine the hacked files going into this sort of thing from a legal point of view and the only physical aspect they'd approach might be related to building standards that were not met perhaps (for litigation related to property losses and casualty compensation claims).

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 05:49 AM
a reply to: Pilgrum

well then i would like you to point out the inconsistencies.
for clarification, its not just because its a mushroom cloud because other blasts csn do this.
its the white vapour cloud climbing out of the first cloud.

"Mushroom clouds result from the sudden formation of a large volume of lower-density gases at any altitude, causing a Rayleigh–Taylor instability. The buoyant mass of gas rises rapidly, resulting in turbulent vortices curling downward around its edges, forming a temporary vortex ring that draws up a central column, possibly with smoke, debris, and/or condensed water vapor to form the "mushroom stem". The mass of gas plus entrained moist air eventually reaches an altitude where it is no longer of lower density than the surrounding air; at this point, it disperses, drifting back down (see fallout). The stabilization altitude depends strongly on the profiles of the temperature, dew point, and wind shear in the air at and above the starting altitude."

"The rest of the material shows a similar standard of logic and amounts to fanciful fiction at best."
should be pretty easy to debunk then?

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 05:52 AM
a reply to: firerescue

"So where is the radioactive fallout …????"

subterranean blast.
and there was control in the hot zone.
people were wearing 'air quality' badges
and were rotated out of there.

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 05:57 AM
a reply to: Thejaybird

yep, people sure like 'muh narrative' on here, considering what it represents.
well said.

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 06:05 AM
a reply to: kwakakev

also well said.
i think what i am putting forward has been introduced here before just dropped and left, though.
the poster couldnt be bothered with the abuse.
i think whats worth noting about Dimitri's position, apart from the fact he was called to court as a person of interest regarding the attack, so this work is in whistleblowing tradition is for personal safety as much as profit.
also it illustrates how we have been partially decieved about nuclear over the years
and also interestingly that he is in the position of defending the u.s. govt.

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 06:12 AM
a reply to: Pilgrum

from wikispooks

"Dimitri A. Khalezov is a Russian National and former citizen of the Soviet Union. He is a former commissioned officer of the so-called “military unit 46179”, otherwise known as “the Special Control Service” of the 12th Chief Directorate of the Defense Ministry of the USSR. The Special Control Service, also known as the Soviet atomic (later “nuclear”) intelligence was a secret military unit responsible for the detection of nuclear explosions (including underground nuclear tests) of various adversaries of the former USSR and was responsible for controlling observance of various international treaties related to nuclear testing and to peaceful nuclear explosions. After 11 September 2001 Khalezov undertook extensive research on the collapse of the three World Trade Center Towers. The research is claimed to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that the three WTC towers were demolished by three underground thermo-nuclear explosions, making the the subsequent "Ground-Zero" name for the site accurate in the traditional and accepted meaning of the term.
Moreover, Khalezov claims that he knew about the in-built so-called “emergency nuclear demolitions scheme” for the Twin Towers as long ago as the 1980's, whilst a serviceman in the Soviet Special Control Service. [1]"

good luck with your debunking, old chap.
i wouldnt have put it up without a bit of checking myself.
by which i mean i failed to debunk..

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 06:27 AM
Gotta love ATS, topic is basically "If 9/11 was proven beyond a doubt to be not what we were told it was. (Whatever that is.) How do you think the public would people react?"

To which I would expect the conversation to go something like:
"If this is what really happened (insert theory here), and (insert people here) was involved, then I would expect the outcome to be this (end result in here)"

But unsurprisingly 95% of the responses are:
"This is why I think 9/11 did/or didn't happen!!!"

Well done at staying on topic for once folks.

edit on 5-1-2019 by AtomicKangaroo because: typos

posted on Jan, 5 2019 @ 07:09 AM
a reply to: kwakakev

Nice to see you posting pictures that are examples of the willingness of the truth movement to push right out lies.


There is no evidence of cut columns during the towers collapse, and right after the collapse.

The cut column photos are photos posted out of context from the WTC clean up.

Are you starting to see how conspiracists use tricks, not truth to exploit 9/11. And it should make any person with a conscience sick to the core.

Again, authentic documents are not going to valid false scenarios like WTC planted pyrotechnics, WTC thermite, WTC nukes, WTC energy weapons, or a missile hitting the pentagon.

Sad to see people buy into the cons of the truth movement, and invest 17 plus years into fantasies. While the truth is ignored.
edit on 5-1-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in