The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

In the thread below is the collapse initiation of WTC on video.

www.metabunk.org...

There is zero evidence of a detention initiating the collapse. The collapse was initiated by outer columns bowing inward and buckling in a narrow band. There is no shockwave. No audible explosions. There is no indication of an explosion at the base or underground.

What do you not get there is zero evidence of detonations at the WTC with the force to cut steel?

If the nuke was under the towers, the slurry wall would have collapse, and the area under the towers would have flooded.

Your dedication to a fantasy based on pseudoscience is sad in the realm of flat earthers.

Are you saying the ground under the towers was heated? Or the columns? Now you are definitely talking radiation levels equivalent to fukushima. Radiation that would kill large amounts of people within minutes, with a cleanup that would be similar to the Fukushima cleanup. By the way, how is that working out. The results would be the pile being activated.

a reply to: neutronflux

i can't believe it: you actually believe that steel beams can melt jetfuel! come on, everybody knows that steel beams can't melt jetfuel!

do you know the name of the german Phd nuclear physicist who explained the nuclear attack in the videos of that thread?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

surely you haven't even watched his presentation.

guess what? his name is.. go looking for it! nah, you don't care, you actually believe that steel beams can melt jetfuel. how steel beams could melt anything in the first place? :-)

and .. .. has a website, where he gathered all the evidence needed to convince any slave (that's you, slave!), that 9/11 was a nuclear attack. but that is not of you concern. remember, you do believe that steel beams can melt jetfuel! :-)

of course there is more than his researches, others physicists have searched in that way, tried to understand (not for you.. sorry not sorry!) and to explain what actually happened.

wtcdemolition.blogspot.com...

35 Reasons for Many Small Fission Nukes at the WTC
1) heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome)
2) inability to quench ground zero heat with water
3) red hot/molten steel at ground zero
4) missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction)
5) spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation
6) washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination
7) extreme security for ground zero steel shipments consistent with limiting access to radioactive steel
8) extreme security at ground zero, limiting exposure, view of devastation
9) extreme pulverization of WTC concrete into very fine particles
10) disappearance of over one thousand human bodies from WTC debris
11) disappearance of furniture, phones, filing cabinets and computers from WTC debris
12) disappearance of elevator doors, office doors, office cubicle walls, toilets and sinks from WTC debris
13) several floor fragments fused together in “meteorite” object
14) bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust upper floor during destruction
15) multiple blast waves during destruction of tower
16) large fireballs during initiation of WTC1 destruction
17) small backpack-sized fission nukes exist
18) fission-nuke technology well-established
19) low efficiency of fission nukes ensures leftover radioactive fragments and China syndrome
20) EMP formation during tower destruction (exploding cars, partial burning)
21) Description of heat in WTC blast cloud
22) Extensive cover-up of ground zero air by EPA
23) High rate of cancers, including thyroid cancer typically associated with radiation exposure, in ground zero responders
24) Melted, hanging skin in WTC survivor Felipe David in absence of fire
25) Vaporized press and crumpled steel door in WTC basement reported by Pecoraro
26) Steel beam bent in U, without cracking, evidence of extreme high temps
27) Steel beam bent in U has layer of molten metal on surface
28) Extreme overall devastation of two massive towers and blasted out Ground Zero aftermath
29) Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical DEW theory by likely govt agents-- uses evidence of nukes (EMP, extreme pulverization of tower into dust) but denies nukes at all costs
30) Appearance of fantastical, nonsensical thermite (super nano-thermite) theory by likely govt agents-- uses evidence of nukes (molten steel, china syndrome) but denies nukes at all costs
31) Small iron microspheres found by Jones et al in WTC dust— evidence of steel vaporization by high temps of nukes
32) Pyroclastic debris cloud during WTC destruction
33) Upwards jutting debris trails reminiscent of debris trails formed during underground nuke test
34) Small bright flashes during destruction of both towers
35) Extremely compacted ground zero debris

but, but, the german physicist and that anonymous physicist have little differences regarding the nature of the weapon, the nuclear device, the nuke, because no one knows the kind of nuke which was used. you shouldn't have had to make me say the obvious, but i had to..

now, deal with your slavery of mind, slave! :-)

originally posted by: Bernardo1871
as 9/11 was a nuclear attack,
there was a blast,
there was heat wave,
and there definitely was EMP registered by cameras.

a NUCLEAR AMP wont just effect cameras they would stop working, no blast wave or heat wave here is a video of the smallest nuclear weapon.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

Just joins and everypost on 9/11 why dont you show some proof for numbers 1-35

I suggest you look at what some of the terms used, I mean 32 for example Pyroclastic Cloud for example is from a Volcano can move between 60-400+ mph and have a temperature of 1,000 c do you think the people of New York hit by the dust cloud would have survived if it was Pyroclastic

a reply to: wmd_2008

up to you to deny the hot dust clouds which engulfed lower Manhattan. you are free to deny like any shill or slave of the 9/11 fantasy narrative the hot clouds.

i choose to believe the numerous testimonies. go find these testimonies by yourself, not here to spoon-feed you. if i've found these, you can, you could find these too! :-)

a question to the 9/11 nuclear attack deniers: how do you explain the hot spots, high temperatures and heat at Ground Zero for months? :-)

don't you dare to deny the heat at Ground Zero, don't you dare! :-)

911research.wtc7.net...

don't answer before reading the 168pages, be honest for once! :-)

a reply to: neutronflux

none physicist who have searched for the truth has ever said that the nukes of 9/11 were any close to what happened at Fukushima, or at Hiroshima nor at Nagasaki.

once again you deny the 9/11 nukes because it doesn't fit with you false view of the nuclear technology.

take that for data: no one knows the nature of the weapons used, except for the Secret Service and the mossad.

yet one can say without any doubt that 9/11 was a nuclear attack. but not like Hiroshima, nor Fukushima accident (if Fukushima was actually an accident and not anything else).

a reply to: Bernardo1871

i can't believe it: you actually believe that steel beams can melt jetfuel! come on, everybody knows that steel beams can't melt jetfuel!

Yes everyone does know that.

Can you even begin to explain how steel being a solid material with temperature that is relative to air temp melt anything?


How can liquid melt is the 2nd question?

Jet fuel is a liquid, How dos one melt a liquid?

try reading what you post, you make no sense, steel melting jet fuel?

You are the only person to ever say that, no one has even implied it can or made any suggestion that can be interpreted as steel melting fuel.

now, deal with your slavery of mind, slave! :-)

The mind is something you should start using to help you read and understand what you post just make no sense and no one has said what you are claiming people believe.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

ICYMI, that was clearly irony.
how could steel melt anything in the first place?
how could jetfuel melt steel beams? simple, jetfuel didn't melt anything.

core columns disappeared into dust clouds: unexplained.
metal poured off the south tower seconds before the 'collapse' : unexplained. i wonder what could have melt that metal?
office furnitures fire?

ICYMI, most of the jetfuel burnt when the plane crashed into the tower.

if any plane crashed into the north then south tower in the first place!
ICYMI there was none vortex right after the explosion. stranger things.

i guess you have missed a lot of data! :-)

a reply to: Bernardo1871

OFFICE FIRES can reach 1000c jet fuel was not the only thing burning. You claim the dust cloud was hot it didn't burn people a Pyroclastic cloud would have cooked them.

Under the right conditions underground fires can burn for a long time if combustible materials are availabe plenty of that at 9/11 site.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

core columns disappeared into dust clouds: unexplained.

Funny, they recovered and identified the core columns of the twin towers. Then took them to Stanten Island for examination. Hard to do that with “core columns turned to dust.”

If “radiation” turned core columns to dust, than everyone in Manhattan would have died instantly from radiation.

metal poured off the south tower seconds before the 'collapse' :

NIST Confirms "UPS" on 81st Floor of WTC2 Was Power Supply; May Explain Glowing "Fountain"

Now your saying no jets hit the towers? Right there in the video. With documented jet wreckage in the streets. Because it doesn’t fit your pseudoscience. With no possibility that explosives were staged on the outside of the towers to blow the outer walls in. With no evidence there was thousands of gallons of jet fuel staged to create the fire balls. With impacts that can only be attributed to high speed directional objects, no planted explosives and fuel.

Anymore falsehoods and pseudoscience you would like to post?

Would you like to cite actual evidence nuclear reactions took place at the WTC to cause a supposed underground explosion that resulted in absolutely no detectable shockwave wave?

Or you just going to talk about surfers and miracles?

a reply to: neutronflux

another fail in the wall. what we see in that video, are the core columns. i see you coming, you are going to ask that these are the core columns. i see you, dummy.

so, what happened to the core columns? :-)

don't watch, beware!

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

you keep proving you dummy-ness. what do you believe?

were there nukes or not? actually you shouldn't even talk about it anymore, as you just deny the truth, ie that 9/11 was a nuclear attack.

alright, ICYMI, nukes are also directed-energy weapons! it's not because some disinformation shill has been speaking about space weapons directed-energy weapons, that directed-energy weapons weren't used on 9/11.

the directed-energy weapons were the nukes, dummy! it's why some people survived the destruction, because it was directed in a precise way.

even if poor wtc6 was a collateral damage, but the weapons hurted wtc 6 from below the ground..

a reply to: Bernardo1871

1) heat generation at ground zero for six months (china syndrome)

One, how would a mini nuke have enough material to cause nuclear reactions to keep over 1,000,000 tons of rubble smoldering hot for three months. Answer it doesn’t.

Two, the radiation would be from a source larger than a nuclear reactor emitting enough radiation to kill people within hours of being at the WTC.


Three, then Stanton Island would have been crapped up with radiation.

a reply to: neutronflux

free to you to deny what happened, what first responders have said happened, what the thermal photos of the NASA have shown. free to you to deny! :-)

a reply to: Bernardo1871

inability to quench ground zero heat with water

One, your confusing a smoldering process that could be cooled enough to allow workers to load the cooled and extinguished mater on trucks to be taken to fresh kills for storage.

Two: if it was heat from nuclear reactions, it would have heated back up while being transported. It would have required cooling where the rubble was taken too.

Three: if nuclear reactions was causing that much heat, people would die within hours of handling and transporting the WTC rubble.

originally posted by: Bernardo1871
a reply to: neutronflux

free to you to deny what happened, what first responders have said happened, what the thermal photos of the NASA have shown. free to you to deny! :-)

3) red hot/molten steel at ground zero

One, how would there be pure molten anything. The condition of the rubble pile debunks there would be only molten steel.

Two, please cite the NASA thermal imaging of the rubble pile that shows it supported temperatures to support molten steel.

Three, water coming in contact with molten steel causes a violent eruption of steam and molten steel. Please cite any occurrences while they were spraying the pile with water.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

missing core columns from ground zero (vaporized during destruction)

The twin tower columns had identifying numbers. The columns where identified by those numbers. Please cite a source that lists what core columns were not found.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

5) spreading of sand at ground zero consistent with attempts to limit radiation
[/quoted]

One: If the supposed radiation wasn’t killing anyone, with no concern for safety, why would they spread sand.

Two: if sand is that effective, then they would use it at Fukushima.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

washing of steel recovered from pile consistent with radiation decontamination

One. You claimed

inability to quench ground zero heat with wate

How did they wash anything if water could not quench the heat.

Two: You are talking radiation and contamination levels greater than Fukushima to heat over 1,000,000 tons of rubble. They track the contaminated water from Fukushima by radiation monitoring. Where is all the contaminated water form decontamination 1,000,000 tons of rubble.