New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions

a reply to: neutronflux

Maybe heat from fires rises, and the incoming air causes an updraft.

Now your just talking nonsense

everyone knows that hot air falls and travels down into the ground and that is why volcanoes go off.

OMG

just look at the photos posted.

they look more like a volcanic eruption than a NUKE.

I think the Masons along with their reptilian overloads ordered the CIA to blow up the towers with volcanoes.

Photo evidence above in Bernardo's post.

a reply to: neutronflux

well, you can't reason a dummy! :-)
it's not that you don't understand what happened, it's that you don't want 9/11 to be a nuclear attack!

i don't care what you think, i just share some facts for the people who will wander at above top secret.
except i admit that making fun of dummies like you is not the best way to convince people, whatever, what matters ultimately is the truth, and those physicists have dared to say the truth.

too bad that most of 9/11 conspiracy nuts are not able to change one more time their mind: you know you have been lied to by corporate whore media, but you can't admit that most of 9/11 troofers have also deceived you. pity.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

The science of wildfires: How these destructive forces of nature create their own weather
m.accuweather.com...

We have measured in-drafts at the base of flames greater than 60 mph," Butler said. "Such strong winds can overpower the synoptic winds [large-scale winds] associated with the fire and cause the fire to move in unexpected directions with unexpected intensity."

The impacts of the in-drafted air can be exacerbated in mountainous terrain, Butler said.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

look, too bad for you that Sedan underground nuke looks very like the nuclear explosion at Nuked York City on september 11, 2001.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Bernardo1871

didn’t know miracles and sufferers were part of nuclear reactions.

Do you have actual evidence of nuclear reactions at the WTC that resulted in collapse.


Below is a link that contains video of WTC 2’s collapse initiation.


the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...


How are nukes responsible for initiating the collapse of WTC 2.

Funny you want to talk about anything than the video, audio, and seismic activity of the actual collapse initiation.

originally posted by: Bernardo1871
a reply to: InhaleExhale

look, too bad for you that Sedan underground nuke looks very like the nuclear explosion at Nuked York City on september 11, 2001.

www.youtube.com...

How. Please show video of the ground at the WTC on 9/11?

a reply to: InhaleExhale

yeah, sure, the mushroom clouds rising up from the foundation of the destroyed Building 7 developed to different heights.

as for the south and north tower, but you don't see that! unbelievable!

that one: i.imgur.com...

a reply to: Bernardo1871

Please cite physical evidence of a shockwave from a nuclear detonation.

a reply to: neutronflux

once a dummy, a slave for-ever! it was an underground nuke. what don't you understand?

underground?

nuke?

underground nuke?

originally posted by: Bernardo1871
a reply to: InhaleExhale

look, too bad for you that Sedan underground nuke looks very like the nuclear explosion at Nuked York City on september 11, 2001.

www.youtube.com...

You think that looks like 9/11?



I am astounded that someone with real interests in truth and not punishing some agenda can say they look the same after a few seconds of looking at both.

the towers had no blast wave that would taken out other buildings.

The collapse starts in the middle of the building and this is also where the dust cloud begins.

I can agree that to an ignorant eye or one that cannot analyze with a little more detail that yes it can look similar but they don't once you know what you are looking at and understand some basic concepts that are involved in movements of large amounts of materials due to impacts or explosions.


for you to say it looks "very much like" is all I need.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

what happened to wtc 3, wtc4 and especially to wtc 6?

my turn to be astounded: how do you explain the huge hole inside of wtc6? how did it happen?

you know the answer: nukes radiation. nukes are also directed-energy weapons.. and it failed a little..

if you want to believe that one starts to believe in the nuclear attack on 9/11 because of these comparisons between Nuked York City and Sedan underground nuke, go on, if that reassures you.

i mean, find whatever you need to feed you cognitive dissonance! :-)

we can argue over any Nuked York City event, nukes win. of course, because 9/11 was a nuclear attack.

how do you explain what happened to the cars burnt near and far away from Ground Zero?

originally posted by: Bernardo1871
a reply to: neutronflux

once a dummy, a slave for-ever! it was an underground nuke. what don't you understand?

underground?

nuke?

underground nuke?

Based on zero evidence of a shockwave wave. No damage to the “bathtub” slurry wall indicative of a nuclear detonation. And none of the video evidence of the WTC supports a underground nuke. And the initiation of how the towers collapse doesn’t support an underground nuke.

Nukes at the WTC are based on nothing but fantasy and pseudoscience.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

Ok, let’s start with what sized nuke was supposedly used.

a reply to: neutronflux

that is a secondary question. even if i gave you the right answer, you would still not believe it. why should i answer to all of your silly questions?

at the beginning of the thread, there are 3 videos with a presentation by a physicist. that is alone well enough to convince anybody with an open mind.

answer my question regarding *Hot Potatoe Ground Zero* :
how do you explain 3 months of heat and high temperatures at Ground Zero?

the smocking gun evidence is that: where did the heat come from?

a reply to: Bernardo1871

my turn to be astounded: how do you explain the huge hole inside of wtc6? how did it happen? you know the answer: nukes radiation. nukes are also directed-energy weapons.. and it failed a little..

Yes Nukes are also shampoo and toe nail clippers.


Ohh, I forget Nukes are amazing when you put them on eggs for breakfast.

if you want to believe that one starts to believe in the nuclear attack on 9/11 because of these comparisons between Nuked York City and Sedan underground nuke, go on, if that reassures you.

When you have evidence based research there is no need for beliefs, we aren't talking religion but it seems the same sort of delusions are required to see from your perspective, beliefs in things that require no belief.

we can argue over any Nuked York City event, nukes win. of course, because 9/11 was a nuclear attack.

actually no argument there

Nukes with eggs and bacon rule.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

The title of this thread “New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions”

The inward bowing of WTC 2’s outer columns that buckled to initiate that buildings collapse is explained by the drooping and contracting of the floor tresses.

How did nukes actually cause what is in the video evidence, with no shockwave, no ejection of splintered steel, no evidence of nuclear reactions, in an isolated area 70 stories above ground.

The physicists in those videos are right out lying. They sold out. It’s what charlatans do. Get over it.

a reply to: Bernardo1871

that is a secondary question. even if i gave you the right answer, you would still not believe it. why should i answer to all of your silly questions?

So you want interaction and when a poster asks a direct question this is your response.


TROLL ALERT

a reply to: neutronflux

Your debate technique is very interesting. You seem to have a page in front of you. For every comment, you copy and paste 4 or 5 posts made of the exact same sentences you posted 10 pages ago. Over and over no matter the subject.

Sometimes you seem to look at the pictures, other times not even that.

I think you have very adequately posted your thesis: 911 for third graders. Please explain WTC 7. Bad welds also? Where do they get these incompetent construction people? Specs call for one of the strongest buildings ever made yet collapses after 1 hour fire.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: neutronflux

Your debate technique is very interesting. You seem to have a page in front of you. For every comment, you copy and paste 4 or 5 posts made of the exact same sentences you posted 10 pages ago. Over and over no matter the subject.

Sometimes you seem to look at the pictures, other times not even that.

I think you have very adequately posted your thesis: 911 for third graders. Please explain WTC 7. Bad welds also? Where do they get these incompetent construction people? Specs call for one of the strongest buildings ever made yet collapses after 1 hour fire.

Because I studied how ignorant the theory of Nukes at the WTC really is. How anyone with a basic education sees how ignorant the nuke fantasy is.

Then you explain what caused the inward bowing of outer columns at WTC 2 to initiate collapse.

www.metabunk.org...

Your bewildered that I use actual evidence to make a case?

says the guy who reads metabunk! :-)

at least that is entertaining. who could have expected that a 9/11 fantasy narrative, aka, 19 hijackers, would be here to prevent the truth to be here, to act like a troll?

as the original poster said in that thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

soulwaxer: this thread will be flooded with certain members who will use all the usual tactics to derail it

of course soulwaxer has posted the real deal about 9/11 false flag: the nuclear attack, so he knows that most of troofers are not able to change their mind a second time, from ae911shills to the truth, aka the nuclear attack.

by the way, the physicist in the 3 videos in the first post has used Dimitri Khalezov's work, of course.

the truth? who cares! 17 years old and muricans are still ranting about the land of the free! :-)