The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

core columns disappeared into dust clouds: unexplained.

are making up crap or parroting crap sme YouTube video guided you say?

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

try providing sources/images or videos of whatever nonsense you have misinterpreted or been lead to believe.

What metal?

I guess only Nukes can create effects and melt metal before they are even detonated.

You are saying it was nukes, this is what you are pushing, right?

How does nuke, before it go off, already melted "metal" as you say that was pouring off the south tower seconds before collapse?

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! :-)

Yes I am missing a lot of data,

as the words you are posting make no sense.

So along with Nukes now you are suggesting there was no planes and may have not been?

It seems you are parroting "data" that was discussed and shredded over a decade ago.

so, what happened to the core columns? :-) don't watch, beware!

I knew it was that idiotic video.

You don't see anything wrong and accept what is presented to you with that video?

i've already shared that. you don't read, you don't care, all you can do is to ask questions which cannot be answered because no one knows exactly what was the nature of the nuke! why? because the people don't know the nukes used.

Look, I now the nature of the nuke used,

we had a beer the weekend before she was deployed

I gave her a good banging to send her off and perform her duty of destroying the north tower.

anyway, back to reality, so no one knows what sort of nuke but it was nuke.

yeah its just too convincing not to believe.

too complicated. stick with steel beams did melt jetfuel.

Yes lets stick with absolute nonsense that shows just how backwards your thinking is.

nonsensical contradictions according to you, because of course, you definitely don't want to admit you have been deceived for so many years! :-)

NO its nonsensical contradictions because you post them and try sweeping them under the rug when brought up about them.

you demand proof then refuse to look at.

The one video you posted where you think it turns to dust is all anyone should need to look at and see where you are coming from.

You have no idea about not a few but many numerous things concerning the 9/11 attacks and you simply let YouTube narrators give you your facts.

The really scary thing is when you look back at the many that have died from wars, from disease, from terrorism etc, all that horrible stuff we hear about, all of it, every negative fking thing in history has made us stronger, the universe just wants to grow, and we are part of the cycle.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

that is not surprising. you don't look at the data, at what happened, but if you did, you don't see anything.

actually, you don't want to see anything.

still none answer regarding the hot spots at Ground Zero which lasted months!


Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news on October 10 2001:

GUMBEL: We’re seeing a lot of video of smoke pouring up from the debris.

ALLBAUGH: Correct.

GUMBEL: And we’re hearing there are places where temperatures are still approaching and sometimes exceeding a thousand degrees.

ALLBAUGH: That’s right.

GUMBEL: Why? Why do we have these hot spots? What’s going on?

ALLBAUGH: Well, you have normal debris, you know, computers, paper, you have some areas that are hot pockets because of fuel. It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into those areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material.

atta slave, the FEMA itself confirmed the hot spots. they said they don't know? do you expect them to say that New York City has been nuked on september 11, 2001? that's stupid, you don't expect the culprit to say he killed the people!

how dumb can be 9/11 slaves and most of 9/11 conspiracy nuts? :-)

regarding the planes in Nuked York City, i don't know for sure.
regarding the nuclear attack, i just accept that truth. you don't, deal with it! :-)

of course you don't agree that the last standing columns turned to dust into mid-air, because you don't accept the nuclear truth!

so, not surprising that you deny that nukes did that to the core columns, if in the first place you deny the nuclear attack! :-)

a reply to: Bernardo1871

do you expect them to say that New York City has been nuked on september 11, 2001?

No. Because nukes used on 9/11 is a lie.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

ALLBAUGH: Well, you have normal debris, you know, computers, paper, you have some areas that are hot pockets because of fuel. It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into those areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material.

The quote is they don’t yet know. Now the rubble is all cleaned up, would you like to give an update.

And again. If the decay of fission products was keeping the 1,000,000 tons of rubble at 1,000 F, people would have died within minutes of arraving at the pile.

Your ignorance, or willing to post blatant falsehoods is horrifying.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

of course you don't agree that the last standing columns turned to dust into mid-air, because you don't accept the nuclear truth!

NO, because nothing turned to dust in that video.

regarding the planes in Nuked York City, i don't know for sure. regarding the nuclear attack, i just accept that truth. you don't, deal with it! :-)

Well sorry there is nothing to deal with not accepting your delusions that you just let us readers know how you got them.

There is no evidence other than visual misinterpretation of grainy YouTube videos that you do accept.

You just said it, you accept it.

You haven't concluded anything based on any research but have accepted what was presented to you that fed your ego and state of mind at the time of hearing it.


Good for you.

I like to do my own thinking and not accept things like you have and are wanting others to do the same stupid thing you have. acceptance.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

you don't know when to cease a battle, do you?

simple question: explain where did the heat come from at Ground Zero in the months after september 11, 2001.

explain why there was heat and high temperatures at Ground Zero.

use any source you want. advice: use the thermal photos of the NASA! :-)

neutronflux has not answered that simple question while i've answered most of his stupid questions and sophism! :-)

a reply to: Bernardo1871

You still have not replied to my post showing that a health inspector was deployed to WTC
Equipped with sensitive radiation detection equipment found no radiation

Kinda strange that a nuclear weapon releases no measurable radiation

What about residual radiation aka fallout

You claim that it kept WTC rubble pile hot for months - yet no radiation was every found by number of agencies
which examined the scene

originally posted by: Bernardo1871
a reply to: InhaleExhale

you don't know when to cease a battle, do you?

simple question: explain where did the heat come from at Ground Zero in the months after september 11, 2001.

explain why there was heat and high temperatures at Ground Zero.

use any source you want. advice: use the thermal photos of the NASA! :-)

neutronflux has not answered that simple question while i've answered most of his stupid questions and sophism! :-)

you really don't get it.

You posted that video that you think is steel turning to dust.

Its game over for you.

No credibility whatsoever after posting that video then you go a step further and say you accept it was nukes.

Sorry maybe you don't understand what certain words mean when used in sentences but accepting something can easily requires no thought.

What you are posting is very indicative that no thought has been put in what you are accepting.

simple question: explain where did the heat come from at Ground Zero in the months after september 11, 2001. explain why there was heat and high temperatures at Ground Zero. use any source you want. advice: use the thermal photos of the NASA! :-)

NO

go back and explain why you think the video you posted is metal turning into dust.

instead of accepting try thinking why you accept what has been fed to you and then try explaining yourself and stop saying others don't when your posts are clear for anyone to read.

Its just arrogance and name calling and what looks like drunk posting saying metal can melt fuel.

neutronflux has not answered that simple question while i've answered most of his stupid questions and sophism! :-)

Its not that simple, try reading the many things that contradict each other that you have posted and not accepting that you are right or what you have been told to believe is right by some YouTube narrator.

Then you might get a clue why certain questions of yours cannot be answered because they make no sense to what you posted prior.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

it's not the person who uploaded that video of dustification that 'tought' or 'spoon fed' me with the nuclear truth.

ICYMI, there are actually 4 hypothesis regarding the nuclear attack. one is more right than the others, but all of them complete each other.

i understand that you use what you call, miscall an error, ie the video of dustification, as an excuse not to look at the hot spots. i understand, you feed your cognitive dissonance with whatever can be used! :-)

come on, try it! try to read all the documentation regarding the hot spots and try to do what, according to you, i do not do: think! :-)

think about what could have done that.

you know the joke: where did the towers go? actually it's rather, where did the heat come from! :-)

that is no fun is you keep avoiding the hot spot issue!

Why was steel pulverized, paper however did not burn?

Iron absorbs the energy of a nuclear radiation pulse. Paper cannot absorb this energy and is thus not destroyed. This destruction process is called ‘molecular dissociation’, the crystal lattice disintegrates.

No existing explosive or chemically reactive material is able to vaporize iron and disintegrate crystal structures while leaving paper undamaged AT THE SAME TIME. This can only be done by nuclear weapons.

take that for data, dummy! :-)

911u.org...

try to answer on a scientific ground for once, not just 'it's wrong', 'ThErE iS No EviDeNcE' :-)

a reply to: Bernardo1871

you know the joke: where did the towers go? actually it's rather, where did the heat come from! :-)

From the combustion of smoldering combustible material that had a limited fresh air supply that was trapped in the rubble. A process that was similar to how charcoal was once made by burying burning wood. Material that would flash once the rubble was exposed to fresh air during the cleanup up.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

that is no fun is you keep avoiding the hot spot issue!

how can I avoid something I was never talking about?


Why cant you stick what was being talked about specifically?

i understand that you use what you call, miscall an error, ie the video of dustification, as an excuse not to look at the hot spots. i understand, you feed your cognitive dissonance with whatever can be used! :-)

NO I am trying to stick to the topic at hand.

You brought forth a video and claimed its metal turning to dust.

You wont answer one question about why you accept what you were told and shown in that video.

Why was steel pulverized, paper however did not burn?

again,

just post random questions to obfuscate.

Try sticking to one thing, y0u want to bring up other things, bring links/pics/videos so we know what steel you are talking about that was pulverized and what paper out of the millions of bits of paper didn't burn.

No existing explosive or chemically reactive material is able to vaporize iron and disintegrate crystal structures while leaving paper undamaged AT THE SAME TIME.

show what metal/iron you are talking about that was "vaporized" (using that term just shows the level intelligence you have concerning materials)


Or are you still basing this off that video you posted that you don't want talk about?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

as i already said, it's no use to argue with people who deny the nuclear attack.
how do you expect to accept that the spire of what was left of the north tower was the consequence of molecularly dissociation which turned both wtc 1 and wtc 2 into dust, lefting only residual structures, which collapsed seconds after the end of the main collapse.

that's stupid: you ask explanation for something about which, whatever i say, you will not believe it.

as if i asked you to explain how the earth was flat, but whatever you say i'll righfully keep believing that the earth planet is nothing else but a freakin' donuts! :-)

a reply to: Bernardo1871

Funny, a site where buildings that turned to dust required heavy equipment loading rubble into around 400 dump trucks a day for three months to clean up. Rubble that was taken to fresh kills for examination. With videos and phots of steel everywhere. Something like over 1,400,000 tons of rubble was removed.

How were something like ten other buildings destroyed, or damage beyond economic repair by falling rubble. With no indication of damage from the ground up.

Funny that the steel and floor connections were examined?

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...

Why does your “theories” require blatant falsehoods, and the blatant disregard for the video, audio, seismic, metallurgical evidence?

a reply to: Bernardo1871

Are you saying the other buildings at the WTC were destroyed because of an underground nuclear detonation when the damage was from falling rubble? And the slurry walls/bathtub around the twin towers was left intact and not breached?

a reply to: Bernardo1871

You said something about EMP? So what exact time was the nukes detonated on 9/11! From EMP evidence?

a reply to: Bernardo1871


Yes, that the authorities invoked the term Ground Zero was a sort of Freudian Slip, dropping a clue to the clueless.

It shows how cocky the perps are.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Bernardo1871


Yes, that the authorities invoked the term Ground Zero was a sort of Freudian Slip, dropping a clue to the clueless.

It shows how cocky the perps are.

Funny, when conspiracists are asked to provide physical proof they want to play semantics over word games.

If your concerned over truth, why don’t you call Bernardo1871 falsehoods out? Falsehoods not supported by actual science, and not supported by reality in general.

a reply to: Salander

if you accept that the elites are satanic, you expect that they have to tell you what happened, before it happened, as if the people would agree with the crime over their unwilling will / unbeknownst to their own free will.

like what happened in that video at 4:10
www.youtube.com...

the children have to repeat quickly some words, among them are 'kit', 'steal', 'playing', 'must', which was heard as

HIT STEEL PLANE MUST.

of course coincidence theorists will answer that it's the proof that we are conspiracy nuts! :-)

i forget, 'Tribute in Light' mocked the blue Cherenkov radiation caused by radioactivity. another coincidence in the wall of deception.