9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

a reply to: DEVOTEDTOCHRIST

Walls of text are difficult to read, try breaking it up into a number of paragraphs next time ok?

BTW, when did Henry Kissinger admit this, do you have a source?

a reply to: DEVOTEDTOCHRIST

There is no evidence of a "mini-nuke." While that idea looks keen on the surface, it is just slightly less idiotic than death rays from space.

Blast and radiation would be a bit obvious, wouldn't they? Fallout might be noticed. Radiation deaths would be embarrassing to the plotters. If anyone wanted to clandestinely destroy something, they might not use nukes for these reasons.

This is why there are debunkers debunking. This one has been explained many times and is easy to debunk but rookies get reinfected with all the previously debunked theories and have to be inoculated against them again and again.

a reply to: pteridine

How does it look keen on the surface?

Because some source of high energy blew large structural pieces hundreds of feet horizontally?

Because so many working at Ground Zero became sick with cancers associated with radiation?

Because molten iron remained for 90 days?

Because the NIST explanation of burning office furnishings cannot cause what was observed?

Because of the pulverization of so many things? Why does it look keen on the surface but fail otherwise?

One would think the US government would have measured radiation that day, but apparently it did not. Of course one would think that the US government would have also measured the air quality before Todd-Wittman pronounced it safe to breathe, but it didn't.

a reply to: Salander

Why would a nuke bomb create molten iron for 90 days?


Let's start with you providing proof it was molten iron. Not molten slag from a mixture of plastics, drywall, copper, lead, aluminum, tin, mixed with ash and char. Throw in smoldering material waiting for an oxygen supply to reignite.


On the horizontal issue....
Not horizontal. But down and out. All it takes is two of the same sized items falling into each other, or one large and one small item, to create outward movement.

The newton cradle example you continue to ignore.

The Physics of Newton's Cradle
m.youtube.com...

Not only do the balls in a Newton's cradle push out, but upwards too. Proving material colliding in a large fallling building can push other items out. By nothing more than converting potential energy into kinetic energy.

People working chemical plants develope cancer without ever being exposed to radiation. Toxic smoke and chemicals known to cause cancer were in the WTC dust.

Let's not forget no radiation sickness. No evidence of an over pressure event that would have been capable of cutting steel as evident by no pressure wave with enough energy to create a noticeable BOOM! No fission products from a nuclear blast.

What evidence was there of a nuclear blast? No boom, no signs of radiation sickness, no radiation burns, and fission products stay around a long time. Rescue equipment, ERs, ambulances, restaurants, police stations, fire stations, the street, near by buildings, and the debris would have been contained by the wind and people to a detectable degree.

But thank you for debunking the towers fell into their own footprints. Another strike against the truth movement.

a reply to: Salander

Rock is pulverized into dust everyday by gravity driven falling steel in rod mills and ball mills.

Thanks for acting like all these issues concerning no proof of nukes at the WTC have not been brought to your attention.

One would think you would have created an argument to address all the short comings of the nuke bomb theories by now?

Plus, there is a whole group that thinks the existence of nuclear bombs are a hoax. Are they irrational conspiracists? How would you prove the existence of nuclear weapons and that they were used at the WTC. By your logic, there is only the government's word nuclear bombs exist. Using your logic, there is reasonable doubt nuclear bombs exist. They might be nothing more than fire bombs. One of the conspiracy theories.

And yes, I believe nuclear bombs exist. But there are groups that doubt government claims nukes are real....

a reply to: Salander

What from the WTC 2 video of inward bowing and buckling supports a collapse initiated by a nuclear device.

www.metabunk.org...

The event that started the collapse was pulling in the outside WTC columns only in an area one or two floors high at the perimeter of the tower. Not out.
The video shows no collapse initiation above the area of buckling. The floors above the buckling show no upward momentum.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

How does it look keen on the surface?

Because some source of high energy blew large structural pieces hundreds of feet horizontally?

Because so many working at Ground Zero became sick with cancers associated with radiation?

Because molten iron remained for 90 days?

Because the NIST explanation of burning office furnishings cannot cause what was observed?

Because of the pulverization of so many things? Why does it look keen on the surface but fail otherwise?

One would think the US government would have measured radiation that day, but apparently it did not. Of course one would think that the US government would have also measured the air quality before Todd-Wittman pronounced it safe to breathe, but it didn't.

It is keen on the surface because for those completely ignorant of nuclear explosives, it is an exotic theory that they believe explains the events of the day. As you are an internet warrior, you know how to find videos of nuclear explosions. See if any of those videos looks like the collapse of the towers.
Radiation would have lasted much longer than a day and a ground burst would have scattered fallout downwind, killing thousands.
The shockwave would have at least broken windows for a mile or so around and the fireball would have been a bit noticeable.
The residual heat tracks with underground fires that stopped burning when the fuel was consumed.

a reply to: neutronflux

Heat, immense heat, is required to keep iron molten, especially for several months.

More heat than is generated by burning office furnishings on the upper floors.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

How does it look keen on the surface?

Because some source of high energy blew large structural pieces hundreds of feet horizontally?

Because so many working at Ground Zero became sick with cancers associated with radiation?

Because molten iron remained for 90 days?

Because the NIST explanation of burning office furnishings cannot cause what was observed?

Because of the pulverization of so many things? Why does it look keen on the surface but fail otherwise?

One would think the US government would have measured radiation that day, but apparently it did not. Of course one would think that the US government would have also measured the air quality before Todd-Wittman pronounced it safe to breathe, but it didn't.

It is keen on the surface because for those completely ignorant of nuclear explosives, it is an exotic theory that they believe explains the events of the day. As you are an internet warrior, you know how to find videos of nuclear explosions. See if any of those videos looks like the collapse of the towers.
Radiation would have lasted much longer than a day and a ground burst would have scattered fallout downwind, killing thousands.
The shockwave would have at least broken windows for a mile or so around and the fireball would have been a bit noticeable.
The residual heat tracks with underground fires that stopped burning when the fuel was consumed.

Perhaps what you are not considering at the moment is that great progress has been made in research and development of nuclear weapons and devices since 1945.

It has reached such an advanced stage, our knowledge of nuclear processes, that a 14 year old achieved nuclear fusion as part of a high school science project at the Davis School in Reno, and he was likely the 32nd human to have done so.

In his small reactor, the plasma inside was heated to 580 million degrees.

The youngster Thiago Olsen in Michigan fused 2 hydrogen atoms to form 1 helium molecule, a "star in a jar".

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Heat, immense heat, is required to keep iron molten, especially for several months.

More heat than is generated by burning office furnishings on the upper floors.

No, to keep things a "molten" slag for months takes layers of insulating debris and items smoldering. Undergoing partial combustion do to limited supply of oxygen.

The pile at the WTC stayed hot and kept the slag molten due to being insulted and undergoing a partial combustion process.

It has nothing to do with the original heat input. Has everything to do with heat retention and the fires at the WTC continued to smolder.

Pulse, wouldn't a nuke vaporize metal? There would be nothing left to be molten.

Why would a pile of hot smoldering debris acting as insulation equal nukes....

a reply to: Salander

Why does the moment of collapse show on video the inward bowing and the folding in and down of the upper portion of the tower as a unit. Wouldn't a nuke push the outside of the tower out, and the floors up from where the detonation took place?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

How does it look keen on the surface?

Because some source of high energy blew large structural pieces hundreds of feet horizontally?

Because so many working at Ground Zero became sick with cancers associated with radiation?

Because molten iron remained for 90 days?

Because the NIST explanation of burning office furnishings cannot cause what was observed?

Because of the pulverization of so many things? Why does it look keen on the surface but fail otherwise?

One would think the US government would have measured radiation that day, but apparently it did not. Of course one would think that the US government would have also measured the air quality before Todd-Wittman pronounced it safe to breathe, but it didn't.

It is keen on the surface because for those completely ignorant of nuclear explosives, it is an exotic theory that they believe explains the events of the day. As you are an internet warrior, you know how to find videos of nuclear explosions. See if any of those videos looks like the collapse of the towers.
Radiation would have lasted much longer than a day and a ground burst would have scattered fallout downwind, killing thousands.
The shockwave would have at least broken windows for a mile or so around and the fireball would have been a bit noticeable.
The residual heat tracks with underground fires that stopped burning when the fuel was consumed.

Perhaps what you are not considering at the moment is that great progress has been made in research and development of nuclear weapons and devices since 1945.

It has reached such an advanced stage, our knowledge of nuclear processes, that a 14 year old achieved nuclear fusion as part of a high school science project at the Davis School in Reno, and he was likely the 32nd human to have done so.

In his small reactor, the plasma inside was heated to 580 million degrees.

The youngster Thiago Olsen in Michigan fused 2 hydrogen atoms to form 1 helium molecule, a "star in a jar".

Nuclear science continues to advance. Bombs advance in their size and control. That said a nuclear bombs are just that; bombs. Bombs do make a lot of noise and produce shock waves. Nuclear bombs also produce radiation -- lots of it on detonation and the residual radiation from fallout. Neither of these phenomena were seen in the collapse of the towers.
Think for a moment. If you wanted to collapse a building, covertly, would you use something as obvious as a nuclear weapon? If anyone ever discovered such, it would be difficult to blame anyone else. Fortunately for all concerned, especially those near ground zero, there is no evidence for any nuclear device being used.

a reply to: pteridine

Is it wrong to say a thermal nuclear device uses a conventional explosive to initiate the fission process by slamming the nuclear material together?

Would it be wrong to say there is a minimum amount of conventional explosives needed to trigger the nuclear explosion?

Would it also be wrong to say there is a minimum amount of nuclear material needed to fuel a nuclear detonation. Under that threshold, the conventional explosives used to tigger the nuclear reaction would produce a bigger explosion than that caused by the nuclear reaction?

a reply to: pteridine

Also, if it takes 20 tons of TNT to collapse a building, it would take a nuclear device that produces a 20 ton equivalent explosion?

If you use a 5 ton equivalent TNT nuclear device on a building requiring 20 tons of TNT, the building probably will not collapse.

So the nuclear device would have to meet the minimum requirement of conventional explosives to trigger the nuclear reaction.

The nuclear device would have to meet the minimum amount of nuclear material to create a bigger explosion than the conventional explosives.

Then the nuclear bomb would have to be big enough to cause a tower to collapse.

Be big enough to cause what people falsely call the WTC dustification.

And the nuclear bomb would have to be big enough to produce the false claims heat alone caused the pile to be "molten" hot for months.

I think any person with common sense realizes that a 5 ton equivalent TNT nuclear bomb would be to small for much of the criteria listen. Other words physical impossible.

originally posted by: neutronflux


I don't understand a "truth movement" that allows and nurtures con artists among its own ranks.

I think you mean: a truth movement with no centralized leadership.

All movements that have no centralized leadership end up having con artists. Just look at Christianity. No centralized leadership, and plenty of hucksters.

Well, except for the exploration of 9/11. And the desperation for any magic smoking gun concerning 9/11.

So hypocritical.

It's sad that people are so eager for a smoking gun. Few crimes have smoking guns.

Generally, if you see a smoking gun, it's because you're looking at a frame up.

originally posted by: neutronflux
So the nuclear device would have to meet the minimum requirement of conventional explosives to trigger the nuclear reaction.

The nuclear device would have to meet the minimum amount of nuclear material to create a bigger explosion than the conventional explosives.

Then the nuclear bomb would have to be big enough to cause a tower to collapse.

Be big enough to cause what people falsely call the WTC dustification.

And the nuclear bomb would have to be big enough to produce the false claims heat alone caused the pile to be "molten" hot for months.

I think any person with common sense realizes that a 5 ton equivalent TNT nuclear bomb would be to small for much of the criteria listen. Other words physical impossible.

It would also leave a detectable isotope signature. Anyone looking for it could find it.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I don't know what to make of the truth movement, ufology, cryptozoology.

It would be awesome if grassroots movements were nothing but honorable. But having no means to police themselves, they are infiltrated by those that seek to exploit the listed causes for self promotion. I think many individuals start out well intentioned. But something changes as they find out they can make a living just telling people what they want to hear, and no real rationality needed.

But, soon as you form a governing body, you get into group think and group pecking order.... The establishment effect..

One of my favorite studies into debunking.

Not the best article, but the title is to the point...

Two Girls Fooled the World with Photos of Fairies (including the author of Sherlock Holmes
www.mamalisa.com...

Photography was new in those days so it was harder to prove fake photography. If people want to believe something, I guess they’ll find ways to justify it. It’s just so amazing that two girls were able to fool so many people, including the supposedly analytical creator of Sherlock Holmes!

a reply to: neutronflux

LIes. Those fairies are real, it's a coverup.

From your source:

I remember that we took copies of the photos to an expert at Kodak who couldn’t tell us how the trick was done

There is no evidence to support the articles hypothesis and assumption, all based on a political agenda to cover up a real fairies.

The article was deliberately written to fool the masses, the science cannot, and will not stand up to real science.

The Kodak expert is credibul and it is jevenul to think otherwise.

I speak the truth!