New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions

a reply to: Willtell

There have been thousands of deaths related to the after effects of 911

yes you are reply to a post saying that.


are you saying that the deaths are from Nuclear fallout as that was what the person was denying not that many haven't become sick and died from after effects?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

How do we know those deaths aren’t a form of nuclear fallout

Obviously, if they don’t really know the exact nature of the process that blew up the buildings how do we know those deaths aren’t related to this form of nuclear fallout….It’s likely an exotic weapon, that may produce these effects.

ONLY TEH SCOUNDRELS THAT DID THIS PROBABLY KNOW FOR SURE



There are certainly known effects of nuclear fallout like forms of cancer, but imagine the UNKNOWN effects particularly of some kind of nuanced nuclear weapon they might have used

When they first used the weapons on Japan they really didn’t know the damage they would cause.

Likely they don’t know all of the damage they caused

And if they did they would likely lie about it

a reply to: Willtell

There have been thousands of deaths related to the after effects of 911

yes, and I have a quote in my comment about the possible reasons...

How do we know those deaths aren’t a form of nuclear fallout

sickness from nuclear radiation exposure? I dunno man but I don't think that would have been possible to keep under lid. No way...

a reply to: DebtSlave

the obvious questions :

how many alledged " magic nuclear warheads " were used ?

if more than one - where were they sited

detonation time for each

the delusion of " magic nuclear warheads " - falls apart faster than the WTC 1 & 2 collapse rate

a reply to: Willtell


I was going to quote some things but its all over your post.


"they"


and more delusional nonsense in between all the uses of "they".

The science that describes why and how the buildings fell is sound.

If it wasn't then all these architects and engineers that have formed a group should have the maths to prove the calculations done when investigation wrong.


all the information id publicly available.


Over the years its been observed that the only ones that keep on about demolitions and what not are very easily manipulated, maybe they have their minds toooooo open.

When they first used the weapons on Japan they really didn’t know the damage they would cause.

Yes they did.


Its why they dropped it.


You never heard of the Trinity test?

There are certainly known effects of nuclear fallout like forms of cancer, but imagine the UNKNOWN effects particularly of some kind of nuanced nuclear weapon they might have used

Forms of cancer?


what do you mean?

a reply to: Willtell

some kind of nuanced nuclear weapon they might have used

just man up and say " magic "

" nuanced nuclear weapon "

thats one way of describing a delusion that does EXACTLY what you want - without any pesky real world physics

originally posted by: SecretsoftheBlueApples
Conjecture and PowerPoint slides turned into a YouTube video does not constitute evidence. How about big f'ing 757s loaded with Fuel crashing into big f'ing buildings.....how about that?

a reply to: DebtSlave

Or how about just office fires in the case of building 7...how about that?

I did not believe the official story until i seen this happen.

Now i believe some of the story.

Yes, the strangely burned vehicles present a major problem for the NIST explanation. Hell, everything presents problems for the NIST explanation.

I knew there were hundreds of strangely burned vehicles, but not 1400. No surprise.

The nuclear theory is the only theory that solves all the problems, that accounts for all the damage seen, including that on FEMA photos.

911 First Responders have suffered sicknesses consistent with exposure to radiation. Jon Stewart talked about that on his show on Comedy Central. The Zadroga Bill attempted to address those statistically irregular sicknesses.

Okay, I have to say that this is very very interesting. Will comment more once I digest it fully.

Sigh.

Who would have imagined that breathing in a stew of toxic fumes for even a few minutes could have disastrous health consequences even years after the fact?

What was in the ground zero dust and smoke? Well, absolutely everything that might have been used to construct anything that was inside those buildings. Virtually everything was pulverized. There was a crapload of glass, concrete and drywall in those buildings. When those substances are pulverized, they turn to powder that you DON'T want to breathe. That's not to mention known toxic materials like asbestos. Which you also don't want to breathe should it happen to become airborne.

On top of that, these buildings were largely constructed in the late 60s. Buildings were not really designed to be nontoxic if they turn into a massive cloud of dust that covers the entire city.

I have my doubts about the official story but I don't really find it hard to believe that people who breathed in that # for days or weeks died as a result. I assumed as much when I saw people coughing it up on TV. My first thought was "Man. They survived but I wonder how long they'll live after breathing that crap?"

a reply to: Salander

The nuclear theory is the only theory that solves all the problems, that accounts for all the damage seen, including that on FEMA photos.

But you seem to ignore the problems that come with a nuclear theory.
1. Where was the big nuclear kaboom ? The point of using a nuke is you get more kaboom in a smaller volume.
2. Why weren't all the windows blown out with the kaboom ? Even conventional bombs blow out windows.
3. If 1400 cars were set ablaze by it why weren't all the store fronts set ablaze.
4. Why didn't ALL the first responders on scene die from radiation ?

Conspiracy theorists ignore the things that don't fit their theory.

a reply to: SecretsoftheBlueApples

No. Anything but that lol

a reply to: Willtell

Why it wasn’t a nuke weapon....

One. If there is not enough fissionable material, it’s just a dirty bomb. There is a threshold of weapons grade radioactive material needed to create a nuclear reaction. Anything below the amount would just be conventional explosives used to start the nuclear reaction tainted with radioactive material.

Two. Most of the early documented cancer cases are from exposure from working the WTC rubble. The radiation and contamination would have been the greatest at detention. People would have died with in days, if not hours, from radiation poisoning. Then people present at the WTC on 9/11 should have started to develope cancer at the same time, or sooner.

Three, people at the WTC on 9/11 would have had the greatest exsposure to contamination and radiation. But the following would be true for people working the WTC rubble too. If there was contamination, people would have spread it to ambulances, hospitals, homes, fire stations, cars, the subway, fire trucks, restaurants. The WTC rubble was taken to Fresh Kills for sorting and examining. The people working the site should have cancer and sickness rates same as the workers at the WTC. Probably the same for the drivers of trucks moving WTC rubble.

Four. No indications of an over pressure event from a detention that would have blown out building windows and car windows.

Five. The collapse of the WTC started with no audible blast.

Six. For WTC 1 and 2, the collapse was triggered by the walls bowing inward.

Seven. Magnetic recordings and radio broadcasting during the buildings’ collapse should show interference from electromagnetic radiation / EPM pulse.

Eight. The radiation blast should have activated material at the WTC.

Bottom line. There is no evidence of a floor to floor CD system for any building the truth movement claims had to be present to achieve the witnessed rates of collapse.

The guy is full of BS. First video, at about the 10:30 mark? He went with the pile stayed hot for 3 months?

He just contradicted himself? Trying to say a mini nuke kept over 1,000,000 tons of rubble hot for 3 months?
If radiation keep the pile hot for 3 months, you would need a reactor full of nuclear fuel like fukushima, with the same radiation levels.

The pile stayed hot because of combustion, and smoldering material. Like how they originally made charcoal.

This guy just disqualified himself in the first 11 minutes....

originally posted by: Spacespider
This gotta be the worst theory I heard yet around 9/11
That would be the most caveman thing to do to carry out something like this
There are lots of better more discreet ways

Nukes.. hah

Yes, because cavemen have access to nukes. Also so glad you could post even one of the "lots of better more discreet ways". Exceptional addition to the comments.

originally posted by: TehDiz

originally posted by: Spacespider
This gotta be the worst theory I heard yet around 9/11
That would be the most caveman thing to do to carry out something like this
There are lots of better more discreet ways

Nukes.. hah

Yes, because cavemen have access to nukes. Also so glad you could post even one of the "lots of better more discreet ways". Exceptional addition to the comments.

Could go through the truth movement list?

Richard Gauge, fizzle no flash bombs?

Steven Jones and thermite that has be debunked over and over again?

Holograms with lasers and or missiles?

Dr Wood and captured hurricane power to produce dustification?

a reply to: DebtSlave

NO NOT THIS CRAP AGAIN ….!! (Slapping forehead with palm of hand ….)

Ironic since just got back from a car fire ….

No sign of nuclear detonation at this one Or at this the car fires on 9/11

Question 1 - Is how many car fires you been to …..?? Guess don't get many in Mom's basement

Let me enlighten you Modern cars (and other vehicles) are built with high degree of plastics

Plastic burns ……..

The vehicles on 9/11 were set on fire by burning debris which landed on them, some of the heavier debris smashed
car windows exposing interiors to the burning debris , others landing on cars set them on fire '

Cars parked in NYC are parked very tight with only few feet separating one from other

Once one car is set on fire will ignite others in vicinity - seem this enough times in parking lots One car will ignite
2-3, sometimes more vehicles Will burn entire street of parked vehicles

Burnt vehicles on Barclay Street (North side of WTC 7)

www.youtube.com...

Notice how tight many of vehicles are parked Also notice smashed out windows on some of the cars

originally posted by: seagull
This theory, if one can grant it such a title, has been around since nearly Day one, in one form or another.

Nukes? Really?

There are so many things wrong with this "theory".

The heat pulse? Where?

The radiation? Where?

Big, fast, at a good percentage of the Speed of Sound, moving planes hit the buildings. The impact, and the fuel driven fires, resulted in the catastrophic failure of the buildings.

I don’t buy the nuke argument given what limited knowledge I have of nuclear weapons.

That said, I also don’t buy that two planes alone brought them down either.