Originally posted by bsbray11
You presented another theory, which still amounts to speculation. So what?
Plausible and remarkably possible theories
, instead of a case hypothesis that barely qualifies as conjecture.
I suppose high explosives cause earthquakes? That's why the US uses seismographs to pick up high-explosive technology, right?
When in the ground yes. Perhaps bombs in the basements / coupled to the support columns, but the problem is the spires were both seen standing for a
short time after each collapse.
1. Seismologists can pick up explosions.
2. WTC had seismograph activity.
3. Therefore, WTC was caused by bombs.
A. Nuke bombs cause blast waves and emp waves.
B. Cars lit on fire at WTC.
C. Therefore, Nuke blasts caused the cars to catch on fire.
Z. Nuke Hypothess trumps all others.
Couldn't the massive towers crumbling cause seismograph spikes / the ground to shake-rupture?
Firefighters could have stopped the spread in many cases, leaving the unburned cars, which is damaging to the nuke wave
Leaving them on fire damages the "nuke wave argument"? So what set them on fire in the first place? You're not using logic
Yeah that was hastily written sloppy.
. Car Fires spreading
, instead of all igniting
at the same time
, as a scenario damages your argument.
Your first image shows the dust wave much further than the super high res 2nd image.
Unless you think the dust wave was packing enormous heat, this is a moot point.
It has all sorts of room for random pockets of heat from the grossly chaotic anture of the collapses, unlike a "MicroNuke" which is drippng with
connotations of geometric wave blast patterns that expand / radiate outwards exponentially.
Regardless of what set those cars on fire, there was tremendous amounts of tritium,
That's one sketchy aspect that isn't of concern at this juncture. This was meant to be a focus on testing the plausibility of using the cars
(burned doesnt mean melted either BTW everyone) as primary evidence of a nuke blast
debris was ejected laterally in a way that high explosives or thermite could never do,
I'd like to see that math. Not only is it not possible
that massive kinetic energy from the "official version" collapses have caused
the ejections, but not even high explosives could have?
and it was even spewing fine dust all the way down as if sublimating. Even the spire did this in WTC1.
Ah, now I see where you mentioned the spire. My comment in the other post was talking towards the other XR500 guy; it was a blanket post; was in a
It looks much different from the better camera angle i seen, than the 'turns to dust' claim video.
And you post all these videos about people trying to develop technology where all our brains are plugged into some supernetwork, and yet you can't
entertain the idea of a pure fusion device that gives off very little radiation, even though such devices have been the target of military research
The difference between my TECH works and virtually anything to do with 911 being a conspiracy is that my works are built off of actual citations and
manifesto's that I get directly from government websites. If I could find a manifesto better than PNAC I'd post it, especailly if it were a
manifesto about blowing down the towers with micronukes. I covered PNAC rather well about a year ago in my blog I must add.
You getting a rush too?
It's called I started asking about the unburned vehicle. Noone answered. Couldn't get over how the WFC parking lot was 'hit'. Looked through my
thousands of 911 images archive and started finding all sorts of choice bits, and vast majority of them showed the inconsistency of half burned and
half non-burned cars. In my view, that basically
destroyed the nuke wave burned the cars scenario. Call me biased if you wish, but at some
point you have to decide how outlandish a theory may be, and this nuke op is top notch. In any case, you must examine all of the possiblities and this
thread was to focus on this key line of evidence in a rather specific manner instead of in an unscientific Self-Serving Bias / Peripheral Route
environment. The key part to my self-deception bias-model is the level of irrationality. Do you belive that I'm being irrational?
[edit on 3-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]
[edit on 3-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]