Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: Salander

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND DYNAMIC LOADS on a structure plenty of calculators on the net to work out that kind of load and to be honest you would S#$T yourself if you had a look.

a reply to: Salander

YOU haven't got a clue about how structures behave it's that simple.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

No friend, the argument has been made by many besides me. The evidence is ample, the facts are many.

But a person in denial, like yourself, is simply incapable of perceiving it. Your cognitive dissonance short-circuits your cognitive functions, your ability to analyze the facts.

And for that reason, our conversations end with this post.

Denial of what?

That the truth movement is populated with con artists that milk the movement for noterietay / funding by praying on persons that lack knowledge in science and biased beyond the point of being rational?

Like to provide an example of the evidence?

You still sticking to Thorium as a fission product of a nuclear bomb? A signature of a nuclear bomb?

You still think the elevated rate of cancer from the WTC dust is solely due to radiation and has nothing to with the actual known chemical carcinogens contained in the toxic WTC dust and WTC smoke/fumes? Chemical workers not exposed to radiation still have higher than normal cancer rates? Is that a false statement?

Can you at least provide the nuclear material used in your bomb and the type of nuclear reaction used? You only had 15 years to fine tune your arguments?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

No friend, the argument has been made by many besides me. The evidence is ample, the facts are many.

But a person in denial, like yourself, is simply incapable of perceiving it. Your cognitive dissonance short-circuits your cognitive functions, your ability to analyze the facts.

And for that reason, our conversations end with this post.

Ah, the stereotypical surrender of the conspiracists. The old "you don't understand so I'm going home" post with the de rigueur buzz word "cognitive dissonance" thrown in for good measure. No responses to why no nuclear shock waves, radiation, or fallout were evident. No guesses to where the bomb was placed so the building could fall starting at the impact point. No theory of how large a bomb was used. So much for the nuclear bomb theory, Sal. Why don't you cycle back to "dustification;" Judy Wood will be so happy.
In about a month, there will be a resurrection of the nuclear bomb theory and we will again watch as the proponent avoids any specific responses until he is once again cornered and comes up with the same tired surrender. Who is in denial?

a reply to: Salander

Holly cow batman, there is even conspiracy theories that nuke bombs are fake?

Hope you enjoy the examples of your own logic and false rationalization!

Title: The Trillion Dollar Nuclear Weapons Fraud
www.thedailybell.com...

The main alternative theory regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that they were firebombed. How this would have taken place without being noted – or noticed – is difficult to imagine. Yet, the damage to both small cities does seem to resemble firebombing. Wood buildings burned but stone and concrete ones did not. In Hiroshima both the hospital and the train station survived.

Title: The Nuclear Bomb Hoax - TV Fakery and PSYOP
youtu.be...

Title: NUKES ARE A HOAX 2
youtu.be...

Title: Fukushima and Nuke Bombs are a HOAX
m.youtube.com...

Title: Nuclear Hoax - Nukes Do Not Exist!
youtu.be...

a reply to: Salander

Not only do you have to prove how nuke bombs were used at the WTC, but also prove to a legitimate conspiracy group that believe nuclear bombs are a hoax that nuke bombs are a real thing.

Or do you get to pick which conspiracy theories are legitimate and which ones are crazy?

Care to start proving evidence nuclear bombs were used?