WTC was a Nuclear Demolition - New Facts and Hard Evidence Exposing the Coverup and Censorship!!

page: 7
21
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Here is the first video:




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   
A few seconds before the collapse of one of the towers, you can see the ground shake in this video:



From another angle, you can see the same earthquake happen just before collapse:



This is obvious proof. There's no way to obfuscate it.

Dimitri Khalezov did a four hour TV interview in Europe about the nuclear demolition of the WTC. You can see it here.

edit on 6-5-2012 by WWu777 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


So why were there no radiation detected at the WTC site ........


Tests for a ‘dirty bomb’

A major concern was that terrorists could have unleashed a so-called “dirty bomb,” an explosive device containing radioactive compounds like cesium.

Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department’s office of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way to work when the first tower was hit.
.
“While I was walking down Church Street, with all my instruments, I came within 1000 feet of the South Tower, and unfortunately the building came down,” says Borri, sounding every bit the unruffled scientist. “It’s a good thing I walked slowly.”

How does one continue on one’s mission without getting distracted by such details as a 110-story building comes down in front of you? “You concentrate on what you need to do,” says Borri, who simply walked amid the vehicles and victims covered with layers and layers of soot, “taking samples off the people coming out of the building.”

The high-tech gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger Counter.

Borri checked the World Trade Center site for signs of radiation before and after the collapse of the buildings. Radiation could have originated in industrial radiology sources, such as the installing beams of the huge office buildings, which may have contained some radioactive elements from x-rays taken, and from depleted uranium used in ballasts in aircraft wing tips (such counterweights in airplane wing tips give the most weight for least volume, says Borri). It might also be left from any medical or dental offices.



www.neha.org...

Why were there no radiation casualties......?



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by WWu777
 


So why were there no radiation detected at the WTC site ........


Tests for a ‘dirty bomb’

A major concern was that terrorists could have unleashed a so-called “dirty bomb,” an explosive device containing radioactive compounds like cesium.

Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department’s office of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way to work when the first tower was hit.
.
“While I was walking down Church Street, with all my instruments, I came within 1000 feet of the South Tower, and unfortunately the building came down,” says Borri, sounding every bit the unruffled scientist. “It’s a good thing I walked slowly.”

How does one continue on one’s mission without getting distracted by such details as a 110-story building comes down in front of you? “You concentrate on what you need to do,” says Borri, who simply walked amid the vehicles and victims covered with layers and layers of soot, “taking samples off the people coming out of the building.”

The high-tech gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger Counter.

Borri checked the World Trade Center site for signs of radiation before and after the collapse of the buildings. Radiation could have originated in industrial radiology sources, such as the installing beams of the huge office buildings, which may have contained some radioactive elements from x-rays taken, and from depleted uranium used in ballasts in aircraft wing tips (such counterweights in airplane wing tips give the most weight for least volume, says Borri). It might also be left from any medical or dental offices.



www.neha.org...

Why were there no radiation casualties......?



Do you know how many rescue workers from the WTC site have cancer along with all kinds of health issues? Do your research son



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 




Do you know how many rescue workers from the WTC site have cancer along with all kinds of health issues? Do your research son

Have you eliminated other causes?
Like asbestos?

Do your research son.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by homervb
 




Do you know how many rescue workers from the WTC site have cancer along with all kinds of health issues? Do your research son

Have you eliminated other causes?
Like asbestos?

Do your research son.


Yes sir! This way you scrutinize it!



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


In your first video there is a brief shake which stops 18 seconds before the tower begins to collapse. In the second there is a shake 12 seconds before which continues until less than five seconds before. They are clearly not from the same source.

I work with film. Cameras shake all the time for a million reasons. It's why you lock them off on tripods.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 



Yes sir! This way you scrutinize it!


The dust (and air at WTC) was a toxic mix of pulverized cement, sheetrock, glass, asbestos (from lower floors
of North Tower), lead from plumbing/solder, cadnium (which is highly toxic and used as plating under coat),

The dust was so alkaline it was compared to inhaling Drano

Also a witches brew of toxic compounds were created from burning plastics (fires burned for 3 months) - some
of these compounds never seen before

The rescue/cleanup workers were daily exposed to it . They had filter masks, but often removed them do to
discomfort and difficulty communicating

Again no radiation or radiation casualties............



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
what a shame. this is like the us military using UFO stories to cover up the U-2 spy plane

the real conspiracy was much more like pearl harbor. we knew they were here, meant to do us harm, and let them get away with it

that's the story they don't want anyone investigating

so the hologram, CD, missile, nuke theories just distract folks

what a shame

this ATS thread about it got 2 pages of comments. why ? weird
edit on 8-5-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
could it have been a mini atomic bomb, not nuke?

i mean, what caused the 2.3 miniquake in the area?

and nevertheless, is that what CIA plan to use at their next terror act, some sort of compact nukes? me think so..



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BiggerPicture
could it have been a mini atomic bomb, not nuke?


An atomic bomb is a nuke.



posted on May, 8 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 



mean, what caused the 2.3 miniquake in the area?


110 stories of building hitting ground......



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 



mean, what caused the 2.3 miniquake in the area?


110 stories of building hitting ground......


It wasn't 2.3, those figures are proven to be wrong if you watched the video. Based on witness reports it was estimated to be about 5.8, which ties in with a small nuke exploded underground.

Watch the 2 long videos in full before attempting to reply, you cannot guess at the video's content if you do not watch it. It might just make you look at the official story a little differently, that is if you're open-minded?



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
110 stories of building hitting ground......


But most of that would be absorbed by the building itself, seeing as it collapse down through itself.

It's not like the building lifted up, and then dropped to the ground with its full mass. There was many many small impacts as the structure peeled apart. We should have seen lots of small EQ's, not one large one.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Of course 9-11 was an event that used fission/fusion type demolition. Nothing else explains the evidence. The factor of EMP effects alone proves massive energy sources that fit perfectly with the nuclear scenario. Try and explain how the plainly obvious EMP effects were experienced WITHOUT the use of nukes..you cannot.

Patricia Ondrovic, a NY EMT on scene on 9-11, testified to an official inquiry under oath, and relates what happened to her and others. These effects cannot be ignored and cannot be explained by any other means. Of course some desperate supporters of the official fairy tale go to extreme and ridiculous lengths to try and imagine some way that the effects seen and felt were somehow caused by means other than nukes, but they fail miserably and utterly, embarrassing themselves in the process.

Cars far from the Towers exploding, parts flying off them with enough force to injure rescuers...firemens turn out coats bursting into flames...unusual and inexplicable heat sources experienced by rescuers, far from any heat source...scores of cars displaying incredibly anomalous damage explainable only by energy so intense that no other source is possible except nuclear...melted engine blocks on cars with pristine paint, fire trucks and other large vehicles displaying incredible heat damage and strange patterns of damage...ground heat so intense that boots melted and rivers of molten metals flowing underground, with common measures for nuke clean up instituted, such as hundreds of dump trucks full of sand brought in, sprayed with water, for MONTHS, and the hauled away..steel girders and beams of massive size and strength twisted and heated to multi-thousands of degrees, some steel so effected that the " eutectic" label attaches and allows only nuclear type energy sources as possible.

If you take even a smattering of the known evidence and compare it to known effects from nuclear type devices, it is plain and clear that no other energy source even comes close. How dare anyone imagine that jet fuel fires and office equipment burning could cause such energy and such heat? It insults the intelligence of anyone with the ability to rationally weigh evidence to believe that either gravity or common explosives could possibly account for what is seen on 9-11. The complete shattering of the steel framework, much of it on fire and smoking as it falls, proves extreme temperatures, far in excess of what could be found in common fires, were employed. The testimony of the basement employees of massive explosions, skin hanging with no direct contact with any fire source, 50 ton presses disappeared and fire doors melted..lobbies with dead bodies and incredible damage before any " collapse " initiated...my God people, how much evidence is enough?

Of course there are some who simply cannot fathom the ability of the black ops cabal's in this day and age, and who will deny and ignore until doomsday...but anyone with a shred of discernment can see quite easily what happened on 9-11.

Here is the testimony of Ms. Ondrovic...read it well and try and explain away what she experienced with office fires and gravity..you cannot.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

Of course no intelligent response can explain the EMP effects by other energy sources so please do not waste time and insult those of us with critical thinking skills by means of silly and weak excuses that make no sense...come up with something realistic, if you can...I say you cannot.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 




Of course no intelligent response can explain the EMP effects by other energy sources so please do not waste time and insult those of us with critical thinking skills by means of silly and weak excuses that make no sense...come up with something realistic, if you can...I say you cannot.

EMP? That's a new one.

But then again since the police and fire radios continued to work after the collapse, your theory is FALSE.
But then again since the police and other helos didn't fall out of the sky, your theory is FALSE.
But then again since cell phones continued to work after the collapse, your theory is FALSE.
But then again since video cameras continued to work after the collapse, your theory is FALSE.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


You show your lack of research in a most embarrassing manner. The radio's at Ground Zero went out just prior to the Towers dustifying ) collapsing ). and only came on later. Try this site to aquaint you with the subject:

wtcdemolition.blogspot.com...

Dr. Michael Guttenberg, of NYFD’s Office of Medical Affairs:
Just after the second “plane hit” explosion, and before any tower “collapse”, he noted:

“…on the EMS radio, there was absolute silence for probably 10 or 15 seconds, you know, which to me, it seemed like 10 to 15 seconds, but it was absolute radio silence for a few seconds…”
Questioner:
“We were told that the air was so thick with debris that radio waves weren't able to travel.”

“That was after the towers came down.”

Of course it was not the " air being thick " which was the only excuse that the coverup teams could come up with at that time..dirt in the air cannot cause the radio outages that covered virtually all radio's BEFORE the blast and collapse. Now, would you care to retract your first bold pronouncement on your reply? The rest of Guttenberg's
statements is here..you would do well to read this material next time before jumping the gun with guesses and misinformation.


graphics8.nytimes.com...

The effects of EMP, since you have no idea what the subject is about, ranges from mild to intense depending on how far the object is from the initial source blast and what is in between. If a building is in the way, objects in line of sight and unobstructed will be affected far more than those blocked by structure, etc. Understand? Just because not ALL cars were affected means nothing; only those vehicles not shielded by dense material were radically affected, as is evident from the damage itself.

None of your denials has any substance and no proof behind them. You are guessing based on a lack of education about EMP effects, and you did not read the link or research before posting. Please comment when you have either the facts right or a working knowledge of the subject. If you can explain all of the EMP effects using a gravity/fire based source, please do so...no one else has been able to yet...you would be the first!!



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 




“…on the EMS radio, there was absolute silence for probably 10 or 15 seconds, you know, which to me, it seemed like 10 to 15 seconds, but it was absolute radio silence for a few seconds…”

Going silent does not mean EMP. It means no one talked. Nothing more.

The expected result of EMP's are destruction of electronic equipment. The radios would not come back on.

There are no reports of totally dead radios just after the collapse.

There are no audio recordings from any emergency personel stating that any of their partners radios were dead. Which I would expect.

Do you have any evidence of anyones cell phone being destroyed?

Without any evidence of any damaged electronics you have to conclude there was no EMP.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 




Please explain why video cameras all around the WTCs did not fail to capture the collapse of the buildings.
Please explain why helicopters all around the WTCs did not fall from the sky during the collapse of the buildings.
Please explain why cell phones all around the WTCs did not fail during the collapse of the buildings.

And please don't suggest that all of these devices were hardened

Fitz
edit on 26-3-2013 by Fitzgibbon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


If you really believe that no one talked on the radio's for a noticeable period of time during the most hectic and intense day in NY history, you are beyond rational discussion and i refuse to waste my time convincing you...you are not convinceable because you have made your mind up already without knowing the facts.

There ARE reports of radio's out...in the Guttenberg interview, which you did NOT read, he says that it took HOURS for the cell network to get back online. You are one of those stubborn people who will not accept reality no matter what, and that I have no time for.



new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join