Ground Zero Footage

a reply to: hellobruce

Not true. There is ample evidence for nukes, from the huge lateral displacement of massive pieces to 90 days worth of Chernobyl-like meltdown events. And more.

Dripping skin on humans, bizarrely damaged vehicles with melted tires and blistered paint, epidemiology years later showing more Chernobyl-like illnesses. Testimony of Matt Tartaglia, RIP. Reports of humans engulfed in flames.

The nuclear theory is the only one that explains all the damage observed.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Yes, my second question is relatively simple: do you find the damage observed at WTC, all the damage observed, to be consistent with damage caused by burning office fires?

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


Are you saying all the footage supports progressive collapse? You must have seen different footage because ALL of the witness testimony from that morning as well as the footage of the collapse supports explosives. And there are many engineers to have spoken out, check out all the threads on here.

You clearly haven't watched much footage.

Watch a video of any controlled demolition and then watch the close-up videos of the towers collapsing.

In a controlled demolition, the building seems to consume itself from the bottom up. This is done on purpose so the top floors stay intact as they come down, creating a smaller footprint.

The WTC towers collapsed from the top down, starting with the upper most sections above the damaged area coming down onto the floors beneath.

I am not falling for that one. I never stated "controlled demolition" I said explosives. Just because explosives were used does not automatically mean CD. It just means the building was blown up in away we may not have seen before. Stop trying to fit it in a CD models. In fact stop with your models all together. This is real life son.

So your evidence that explosives were used is the fireball being pushed out of the building by the rushing air of the collapse? You're gonna have to come up with something better than that... son (I really wish there was an eye roll smiley for idiotic remarks like yours). In the closeups of the damaged portion, you can see the structure give way just before the fireball is expelled from the building.

This is real life, boy. The theory that explosives were used to collapse the buildings is fantasy and there isn't a single shred of evidence that suggests otherwise. All the truthers have is opinion, speculation, and photos that are easily debunked. Fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

I will just go with eye-ball witnesses and leave the rest out. Firefighters, police EMT's news anchors... everyone on the morning of 9/11 reported hearing explosions. How does progressive collapse answer to that inconvenient truth.

Hmmm. There were two towers collapsing. They have mass. The movement of said mass may have caused materials to destruct. Have you ever crushed a concrete cube in a lab? Sometimes quiet, usually very noise. Ever tested the tensile strength or compressive strength of steel? Usually noisy. To say everyone heard explosions is wrong. You have hundreds of people experiencing an unprecedented event and you expect them to understand fully what happens. Unlikely.

Then you go tell all the first responders and everyone that survived that what they heard was wrong. They are not going off memory since the testimony I am referring is from the footage on the ground on 9/11.

One quote I can remember from a senior fire fighter "It's like they planned to bring down the building, boom, boom, boom" I'm busy right now but the footage is easy to find if you care.

www.debunking911.com...

It's all about context.

This is just some BS blog. What evidence did it put forth? Observations and opinions. No different than anyone else. That blog wouldn't last a minute of scrutiny on this site. Nice try.

Dude. It's laden with evidence and scientific citations. Th fact that you say it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny on this site is hilarious. I've never read such pseudoscience guff in all my days.

Then bring it. All I read were theories and speculation. Your all talk...

a reply to: signalfire

thanks bro. this is some good stuff here.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ShadowLink

Amazing footage...I couldn't help from noticing how the second tower's lower floors were not in the least compromised. The footage really puts into question how these towers could have collapsed symmetrically into their own foot print. There was more than enough structure intact on those lower floors to create enough resistance to the amount of kinetic energy being caused by the collapse of those upper floors. The public took the OS of the collapse hook line and sinker. Let's hope the truth of these 3 towers collapsing will come to light some day.

Exactly. The building below the impact was not compromised at all. IF the heat from the fires DID weaken the structure at the impacted floors, it does not explain the failure of the floors blow the impact.

The force of the weight from the top section would come apart at the impacted floors because the beams were too weak to hold up the top. How could they be intact enough to transfer the energy in a perfect downward force?

The top section would have been ripped apart floor by floor as it was forced down onto the structurally sound bottom section. Once there were only a few floors left on top, there would not be enough weight to rip apart the beams and it would either park or fall off the side.

And again in another thread you fail to understand dynamic impact loading and the resulting progressive collapse. There is some real bad physics being spouted in this thread.

I understand that the bottom section was a complete structure up to the impacted floors and the top section was partially compromised. Your "dynamic impact load" did not have a connection to the bottom section since it collapsed and allowed the top section to fall so the energy would be forced outward where there wasn't a 100% sound structure under it.

Since there is no example of this ever happening, everything you say is theory.

I spend 8 hrs every day arguing with architects and engineers. They all seem to have a problem understanding the real world away from their theories and computer simulations. They don't even know what IFC stands for, I certainly would not take their word for anything.

Sigh. Progressive collapse. The issue with all of this, ALL OF IT, is that this occurred 13 years ago. All the videos, all the reports, all the pictures. 13 years of this evidence in the public domain. Yet for some reason 99.9999% of civils and structural engineers, the insurance investigators, the materials scientists they all just nodded and smiled and said that sounds right. It's a tiny fraction of these areas that disagree. So either they are on the wrong side, or the 99.9999% have been suckered. I dunno. Seems massively incredibly fantastically unlikely.

Are you saying all the footage supports progressive collapse? You must have seen different footage because ALL of the witness testimony from that morning as well as the footage of the collapse supports explosives. And there are many engineers to have spoken out, check out all the threads on here.

Many engineers, it took about 10+ years for AE911 truth to get to 1500 members NOT all of them are structural engineers, architects are the BEST customers of structural engineers !!!

MILLIONS of engineers around the world DON'T back it, even from nations that DON'T like the USA, I speak to structural engineers on a REGULAR basis and have yet to meet one that would agree with YOUR view.

1500 on paper compared to the millions in your mind. You and scotty are grabbing at things that are not there.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

originally posted by: thabusiness00
to the truthers... what about the no planes theories. when i saw the second plane hit the tower on tv and it faded to black...

The "no planes at the WTC" theories were created by hoaxers to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. There was no "fade to black". They were switching between cameras.

Some simple searching and research will reveal the real truths.

thanks but i have done alot of research and still dont know what to think haha so you dont believe that theory? and idk man september clues does raise some questions

and shadow, thanks been coming here for years finally made an account.

a reply to: Salander

It's not damage caused.by burning office fires. It's damage caused by collapse caused by fires.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ShadowLink

Amazing footage...I couldn't help from noticing how the second tower's lower floors were not in the least compromised. The footage really puts into question how these towers could have collapsed symmetrically into their own foot print. There was more than enough structure intact on those lower floors to create enough resistance to the amount of kinetic energy being caused by the collapse of those upper floors. The public took the OS of the collapse hook line and sinker. Let's hope the truth of these 3 towers collapsing will come to light some day.

Exactly. The building below the impact was not compromised at all. IF the heat from the fires DID weaken the structure at the impacted floors, it does not explain the failure of the floors blow the impact.

The force of the weight from the top section would come apart at the impacted floors because the beams were too weak to hold up the top. How could they be intact enough to transfer the energy in a perfect downward force?

The top section would have been ripped apart floor by floor as it was forced down onto the structurally sound bottom section. Once there were only a few floors left on top, there would not be enough weight to rip apart the beams and it would either park or fall off the side.

And again in another thread you fail to understand dynamic impact loading and the resulting progressive collapse. There is some real bad physics being spouted in this thread.

I understand that the bottom section was a complete structure up to the impacted floors and the top section was partially compromised. Your "dynamic impact load" did not have a connection to the bottom section since it collapsed and allowed the top section to fall so the energy would be forced outward where there wasn't a 100% sound structure under it.

Since there is no example of this ever happening, everything you say is theory.

I spend 8 hrs every day arguing with architects and engineers. They all seem to have a problem understanding the real world away from their theories and computer simulations. They don't even know what IFC stands for, I certainly would not take their word for anything.

Sigh. Progressive collapse. The issue with all of this, ALL OF IT, is that this occurred 13 years ago. All the videos, all the reports, all the pictures. 13 years of this evidence in the public domain. Yet for some reason 99.9999% of civils and structural engineers, the insurance investigators, the materials scientists they all just nodded and smiled and said that sounds right. It's a tiny fraction of these areas that disagree. So either they are on the wrong side, or the 99.9999% have been suckered. I dunno. Seems massively incredibly fantastically unlikely.

Are you saying all the footage supports progressive collapse? You must have seen different footage because ALL of the witness testimony from that morning as well as the footage of the collapse supports explosives. And there are many engineers to have spoken out, check out all the threads on here.

Many engineers, it took about 10+ years for AE911 truth to get to 1500 members NOT all of them are structural engineers, architects are the BEST customers of structural engineers !!!

MILLIONS of engineers around the world DON'T back it, even from nations that DON'T like the USA, I speak to structural engineers on a REGULAR basis and have yet to meet one that would agree with YOUR view.

1500 on paper compared to the millions in your mind. You and scotty are grabbing at things that are not there.

Well were I live which has a tiny fraction of the population of the USA we have more engineers than AE911 Truth and I have NEVER heard any claims that would back what YOU think, so it's fairly safe to say AE911 are a bunch of idiots!

Plus I am on building sites on a daily basis and my first job was in the design/drawing office of a structural steelwork company, now 35 years in the construction industry in technical roles what about YOU?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: hellobruce

Not true. There is ample evidence for nukes, from the huge lateral displacement of massive pieces to 90 days worth of Chernobyl-like meltdown events. And more.

Dripping skin on humans, bizarrely damaged vehicles with melted tires and blistered paint, epidemiology years later showing more Chernobyl-like illnesses. Testimony of Matt Tartaglia, RIP. Reports of humans engulfed in flames.

The nuclear theory is the only one that explains all the damage observed.

No EMP no Radiation SO NO NUKE!!!

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: hellobruce

Not true. There is ample evidence for nukes, from the huge lateral displacement of massive pieces to 90 days worth of Chernobyl-like meltdown events. And more.

Dripping skin on humans, bizarrely damaged vehicles with melted tires and blistered paint, epidemiology years later showing more Chernobyl-like illnesses. Testimony of Matt Tartaglia, RIP. Reports of humans engulfed in flames.

The nuclear theory is the only one that explains all the damage observed.

No EMP no Radiation SO NO NUKE!!!

REALLY? Were you there? Did you have the technical expertise and equipment at hand to test for an EMP, radiation, etc?

No, you were not and no you did not.

Those topics are covered in the Prager material, also echoed on line by a man called 'the anonymous physicist' and Ed Ward, MD but I link to Prager's material because he's the better writer and much more detailed.

Your declaration of 'no EMP, no radiation, so no nuke' is your opinion.

The photos, sustained heat, eyewitness reports and now massive increase in multiple myelomas and other radiation-tied cancers refute your unsourced opinion.

a reply to: signalfire

Wouldn't radiation stay around at measure able limits at the site for a long time? What the smallest blast area or area of effect for any EMP based weapon? Cause camera crew where all over that place, also I didn't see any reports of mass computer outages or problems in that local area.

a reply to: Salander

It's not damage caused.by burning office fires. It's damage caused by collapse caused by fires.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: signalfire
Okay Kiddies, for the umpteenth time, I'm going to post the Jeff Prager NUKED material for your edification; maybe the OS supporters will actually read it this time, I remain ever hopeful...

Prager NUKED pt 1

Prager NUKED pt 2

You'll see photos you've never seen before, many of them uber-zoomable. You'll have to learn a bit about nuclear physics but he walks you through it. You'll actually know what you're talking about regarding what we saw that day, what the aftermath was like, what the evidence unequivocally showed, and a whole lot more!

Cheerio!

What the evidence unequivocally showed. I don't think you understand the word evidence or unequivocally. If it's unequivocal evidence it would be the story. But it's not. So it isn't.

Not necessarily (would 'it be the story')... Jeezus man, why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout, 'LA LA LA!'?

Turns out the truth is dangerous, and the level of cognitive dissonance is massive. The more I talk to people about this subject, the more I realize just how lacking in curiosity and willfully ignorant most people are...

Prager is the unsung hero of the 9-11 Truth Movement; he has put this information together in an entertaining form, out for everyone to read for free, and took the chance that he'd be silenced in one way or another for doing so. He has made no money whatsoever for all his hard work. Meanwhile, Steven Jones and Richard Gage have been doing public (I'm presumed paid) talks now for years, without making any headway in getting their theory taken seriously or publicly debated all that much. I believe the 'thermite' theory is a trojan horse or 'plan B' of sorts; no amount of thermite would have produced the effects seen, and since the nuclear theory is being suppressed, all the smug debunkers can point at the thermite theory, laugh and go back to their Fox News programs. If thermite was ever taken to court, it would be seen for the incomplete or erroneous theory it is, and that would be that. The Big Lie would be the default explanation, regardless of how utterly idiotic it so obviously is.

If Prager's work were taken into court, there'd be a lot of referrals to the Hague based on it. OF COURSE there's evidence there, but I can tell you haven't bothered to read it or you'd be busy discussing it in depth...

What needs to happen is for a new generation, unsullied by the Instant Big Lie shoved at us by the Bush administration and Corporate News, to take a look at the photo and eyewitness evidence, realize how much it doesn't match up with The Big Lie, and finally, realize that New York City was nuked, and 'they' won't hesitate to do it again, in YOUR city, if it suits their agenda.

And time might very well be running out.

Smug debunkers using one-liner declarations that 'nukes are ridiculous' are only proving that they haven't read the material, can't be bothered to do the research, and have nothing to offer to further the discussion. If you want to debate the information in the Prager material, again I can offer up the author for that purpose. We'll get the discussion on tape so the whole world can hear how well you do...

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Bring what? The links to the scientific data at the bottom? What a ridiculous thing to say. Every point you make can be rebutted with something far more provable. Every point that site makes is rebutted by those on the other side with spurious pseudoscience and quite honestly made up waffle. Look at this thread for a start. At various points it's been claimed it was definitely 'micro nukes' or definitely 'explosives' or definitely 'a false flag' or definitely 'missiles' or 'no planes'. It can't be definitely all these things.

originally posted by: signalfire

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: signalfire
Okay Kiddies, for the umpteenth time, I'm going to post the Jeff Prager NUKED material for your edification; maybe the OS supporters will actually read it this time, I remain ever hopeful...

Prager NUKED pt 1

Prager NUKED pt 2

You'll see photos you've never seen before, many of them uber-zoomable. You'll have to learn a bit about nuclear physics but he walks you through it. You'll actually know what you're talking about regarding what we saw that day, what the aftermath was like, what the evidence unequivocally showed, and a whole lot more!

Cheerio!

What the evidence unequivocally showed. I don't think you understand the word evidence or unequivocally. If it's unequivocal evidence it would be the story. But it's not. So it isn't.

Not necessarily (would 'it be the story')... Jeezus man, why don't you just stick your fingers in your ears and shout, 'LA LA LA!'?

Turns out the truth is dangerous, and the level of cognitive dissonance is massive. The more I talk to people about this subject, the more I realize just how lacking in curiosity and willfully ignorant most people are...

Prager is the unsung hero of the 9-11 Truth Movement; he has put this information together in an entertaining form, out for everyone to read for free, and took the chance that he'd be silenced in one way or another for doing so. He has made no money whatsoever for all his hard work. Meanwhile, Steven Jones and Richard Gage have been doing public (I'm presumed paid) talks now for years, without making any headway in getting their theory taken seriously or publicly debated all that much. I believe the 'thermite' theory is a trojan horse or 'plan B' of sorts; no amount of thermite would have produced the effects seen, and since the nuclear theory is being suppressed, all the smug debunkers can point at the thermite theory, laugh and go back to their Fox News programs. If thermite was ever taken to court, it would be seen for the incomplete or erroneous theory it is, and that would be that. The Big Lie would be the default explanation, regardless of how utterly idiotic it so obviously is.

If Prager's work were taken into court, there'd be a lot of referrals to the Hague based on it. OF COURSE there's evidence there, but I can tell you haven't bothered to read it or you'd be busy discussing it in depth...

What needs to happen is for a new generation, unsullied by the Instant Big Lie shoved at us by the Bush administration and Corporate News, to take a look at the photo and eyewitness evidence, realize how much it doesn't match up with The Big Lie, and finally, realize that New York City was nuked, and 'they' won't hesitate to do it again, in YOUR city, if it suits their agenda.

And time might very well be running out.

Smug debunkers using one-liner declarations that 'nukes are ridiculous' are only proving that they haven't read the material, can't be bothered to do the research, and have nothing to offer to further the discussion. If you want to debate the information in the Prager material, again I can offer up the author for that purpose. We'll get the discussion on tape so the whole world can hear how well you do...

Oh no buddy. I downloaded it onto my phone. It was a lovely little ebook he'd made. I liked the illustrations with superheroes and pictures and stuff. It was laid out in a curious fashion, like someone just discovered page maker. Anyways, to the content. If it is what you say it is why isn't it the story?

I asked about every newspaper and news site all around the world. Every single editor and journalist have ignored it. You've all this evidence and all this fact and all these incredible reports and pictures and details yet still nobody touches it. Hmmm..odd.....

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ShadowLink

Amazing footage...I couldn't help from noticing how the second tower's lower floors were not in the least compromised. The footage really puts into question how these towers could have collapsed symmetrically into their own foot print. There was more than enough structure intact on those lower floors to create enough resistance to the amount of kinetic energy being caused by the collapse of those upper floors. The public took the OS of the collapse hook line and sinker. Let's hope the truth of these 3 towers collapsing will come to light some day.

Exactly. The building below the impact was not compromised at all. IF the heat from the fires DID weaken the structure at the impacted floors, it does not explain the failure of the floors blow the impact.

The force of the weight from the top section would come apart at the impacted floors because the beams were too weak to hold up the top. How could they be intact enough to transfer the energy in a perfect downward force?

The top section would have been ripped apart floor by floor as it was forced down onto the structurally sound bottom section. Once there were only a few floors left on top, there would not be enough weight to rip apart the beams and it would either park or fall off the side.

And again in another thread you fail to understand dynamic impact loading and the resulting progressive collapse. There is some real bad physics being spouted in this thread.

I understand that the bottom section was a complete structure up to the impacted floors and the top section was partially compromised. Your "dynamic impact load" did not have a connection to the bottom section since it collapsed and allowed the top section to fall so the energy would be forced outward where there wasn't a 100% sound structure under it.

Since there is no example of this ever happening, everything you say is theory.

I spend 8 hrs every day arguing with architects and engineers. They all seem to have a problem understanding the real world away from their theories and computer simulations. They don't even know what IFC stands for, I certainly would not take their word for anything.

Sigh. Progressive collapse. The issue with all of this, ALL OF IT, is that this occurred 13 years ago. All the videos, all the reports, all the pictures. 13 years of this evidence in the public domain. Yet for some reason 99.9999% of civils and structural engineers, the insurance investigators, the materials scientists they all just nodded and smiled and said that sounds right. It's a tiny fraction of these areas that disagree. So either they are on the wrong side, or the 99.9999% have been suckered. I dunno. Seems massively incredibly fantastically unlikely.

Are you saying all the footage supports progressive collapse? You must have seen different footage because ALL of the witness testimony from that morning as well as the footage of the collapse supports explosives. And there are many engineers to have spoken out, check out all the threads on here.

Many engineers, it took about 10+ years for AE911 truth to get to 1500 members NOT all of them are structural engineers, architects are the BEST customers of structural engineers !!!

MILLIONS of engineers around the world DON'T back it, even from nations that DON'T like the USA, I speak to structural engineers on a REGULAR basis and have yet to meet one that would agree with YOUR view.

1500 on paper compared to the millions in your mind. You and scotty are grabbing at things that are not there.

Well were I live which has a tiny fraction of the population of the USA we have more engineers than AE911 Truth and I have NEVER heard any claims that would back what YOU think, so it's fairly safe to say AE911 are a bunch of idiots!

Plus I am on building sites on a daily basis and my first job was in the design/drawing office of a structural steelwork company, now 35 years in the construction industry in technical roles what about YOU?

Oh, so your a nobody. Welcome aboard. Maybe I will just keep coming up with questions and you can keep on throwing irrelevant qualifications and pretend your smart enough to KNOW the answers.

I can throw out irrelevant qualifications too. Foreman for the 5th biggest steel stud company B.C lower mainland. 18 years in my trade and probably the youngest foreman for the size of jobs I am responsible for. Currently on the new skytrain line when I'm not responding to your personal attacks that is. Telling me you work in technical data positions just admits that your dumb and you don't understand how things work in real life. Wanna keep up with the personal attacks? Fine. Your an idiot that does an idiots job that I have to sort out on site with incomplete prints that never account for site conditions yet somehow bare the stamp "issued for construction" when I havn't seen legitimate IFC print in almost 10 years. Your industry is fraudulent and the rest of us on site have to bare the responsibility while you claim the credit. When the job is done, after the trades have figured out all the answers and completed the print, then you re-issue a new print to the owner with all OUR hard work and take credit for it. What a scam.

Pardon me for not taking your word for anything given your admitted short comings trying to comprehend real world scenarios. I am waiting for a credible investigation and until then I will continue to ask questions that YOU are not qualified to answer.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

You alright buddy? That may well be an over the top reaction...

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Bring what? The links to the scientific data at the bottom? What a ridiculous thing to say. Every point you make can be rebutted with something far more provable. Every point that site makes is rebutted by those on the other side with spurious pseudoscience and quite honestly made up waffle. Look at this thread for a start. At various points it's been claimed it was definitely 'micro nukes' or definitely 'explosives' or definitely 'a false flag' or definitely 'missiles' or 'no planes'. It can't be definitely all these things.

When you see an argument that you believe your buddies blog can answer. Post the part of the blog that pertains to that. That blog is full of BS and it is not the first time it has been posted on here. If you want to get behind it, post it and whatch as you get your ass handed to you.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA

You alright buddy? That may well be an over the top reaction...

Its muggy out and I'm chafing a bit but yeah I'm ok.

You?

originally posted by: ObjectZero
a reply to: signalfire

Wouldn't radiation stay around at measure able limits at the site for a long time? What the smallest blast area or area of effect for any EMP based weapon? Cause camera crew where all over that place, also I didn't see any reports of mass computer outages or problems in that local area.

Exactly.

Logic based counter arguments to this are non-existant. But rather, rely on faith in somebody else's statement.