This will answer 99% of your questions about 9/11.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

There was radiation measured. And cancer rates skyrocketed. It's just never reported.

Prove it, show me actual data that proves radiation levels in New York consistent with that of a nuclear detonation.

Show me actual accounts of people coming down with radiation sickness in the aftermath of the attacks, actually prove it.

If you are making a claim as if it is a fact then provide evidence for it otherwise your "fact" is much like my "fact" about how the sky is actually a giant glass dome.

You are too biased to accept any evidence as being evidence. So, I will just pass on your request.

ahhh so in other words you have zero evince or response to my question, it should not matter if I am bias or not, if you are going to make a claim that nukes were used or whatever else you want to go for then in a discussion like this you kind of need to back that up otherwise its about as valid as me saying that I can fly like a bird.

Why does your link automatically debunk his link?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: soulwaxer

a nuclear explosion. A BIG one, in this case 77 meters underground. 150 kilo-tons.

So your saying that there was a bomb, 3 times bigger than the Hiroshima bomb that was just sitting under the world trade centre.

How did it get there?

Why didn't all of the buildings collapse completely?

Why is their zero evidence of radioactive fallout or sickness, in this scenario the bomb must have been big enough to cause enough damage at a ground level so some fallout should be expected.

What about the planes?

Who actually done this?

Why do this?

How did nobody spot the bomb?

Why do groups like A/E for 911 Truth not take this seriously?

I could go on all day but there is a endless list of questions that have to be answered with proper sources before any of this can ever be taken seriously.

How did it get there: This company designed a demolition scheme for the twin towers before they were built: www.controlled-demolition.com

This was required by law, in order to get the building permit. It was kept from the public for obvious reasons.

Above company was also given the contract for the clean-up of the wtc site. A bit strange to give this clean-up job to the most expensive demolition company in the world, don't you think?

The nukes were kept under building 7 and put into place after "the aluminum planes cut through the massive steel beams of the towers". Read up on that in the pdf, and you will understand that why the second building to be "hit by a plane" fell first.

soulwaxer

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

There was radiation measured. And cancer rates skyrocketed. It's just never reported.

Prove it, show me actual data that proves radiation levels in New York consistent with that of a nuclear detonation.

Show me actual accounts of people coming down with radiation sickness in the aftermath of the attacks, actually prove it.

If you are making a claim as if it is a fact then provide evidence for it otherwise your "fact" is much like my "fact" about how the sky is actually a giant glass dome.

You are too biased to accept any evidence as being evidence. So, I will just pass on your request.

ahhh so in other words you have zero evince or response to my question, it should not matter if I am bias or not, if you are going to make a claim that nukes were used or whatever else you want to go for then in a discussion like this you kind of need to back that up otherwise its about as valid as me saying that I can fly like a bird.

Why does your link automatically debunk his link?

The claim was made that 8 of the hijackers have since been found to be alive, the link disproves this.

There was actually nothing to back up his claim in the first place it was just a regurgitation of something I assume he has read somewhere. I could have provided more but its one of those things thats so bizzar I don't think it really warrants getting to far into it.

If you are interested you can read up more on it for yourself but the idea that 8 of the hijackers are alive is 100% false.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Again I see you making a lot of claims as if they are fact but with zero actual proof.

You are making the claims, the burden of proof therefore is on you.

So you claim that there was a nuke kept under WT-7. Fine. Now can you prove it?

Just a heads up here.

As I predicted in my OP, this thread is being FLOODED by some very familiar members, on a Tuesday during working hours in the US, with the very familiar tactics.

There is a reason for that. Can anyone guess what that reason might be?

soulwaxer

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: soulwaxer

Again I see you making a lot of claims as if they are fact but with zero actual proof.

You are making the claims, the burden of proof therefore is on you.

So you claim that there was a nuke kept under WT-7. Fine. Now can you prove it?

The pdf proves it just fine, not only by the witness testimony of Dimitri Khalezov, but by using a massive amount of well-known facts and using basic logic. It all fits together.

If you are expecting me to keep up with your constant firing of questions at me, you are obviously not going to be accommodated. I can only type so fast. Hence my pointing to the pdf.

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

As I predicted in my OP, this thread is being FLOODED by some very familiar members, on a Tuesday during working hours in the US, with the very familiar tactics.

Flooded....

Not exactly there are just a few of us who are challenging your views thats all.

Also its 17:20 right now in the UK, you do realise of course that ATS is frequented by people from all over the world.

There is a reason for that. Can anyone guess what that reason might be?

errrmmm...

Because its a discussion forum and thats what people do on the interwebs??

Do you have another theory.

a reply to: soulwaxer

So you can't actually back up your claims.

Saying "read a 1000 page pdf and watch this 5 hour video" doesn't quite cut it for me, honestly if you are a proponent of this theory I would expect you to be able to just explain it and post relevant links.

I actually watched the first 15-20 mins of the video.

Dimitri also claims that the planes were holograms do you agree with this?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
What I don't understand about 9/11 is why people are so hung up on the official story. Why is it so outrageous to suggest the terrorists were capable of rigging the buildings for demolition. The evidence clearly supports controlled demolition. What difference does it make how the buildings were brought down?

Why is the official explanation so important is mind boggling to me. NIST is clearly fudging their results by not making their computer models public. At some point, just like JFK, the investigation will be reopened.

No. The terrorists were not capable of rigging the buildings for demolition. That's just absurd.

How the buildings were brought down is extremely important, because the answer to that question also leads to WHO brought them down an WHY. Also to why the US government initiated the incredibly obvious cover-up.

Here's the short version:
The US government was completely caught off guard on 9/11 by the perpetrators (who were not the terrorists), and to avoid A LOT more casualties, they brought the buildings down with the built-in nuclear demolition scheme.

The reason they feared A LOT more casualties can be found in what was found at the end of that hole in the Pentagon.

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

The US government was completely caught off guard on 9/11 by the perpetrators (who were not the terrorists), and to avoid A LOT more casualties, they brought the buildings down with the built-in nuclear demolition scheme.

Agreed they were caught with their pants down so at least we can kind of agree on something. However....

your post again raises more questions that it answers so who were the perpetrators of the attack and why the hell would the government think a nuclear detonation in the middle of New York could possibly cause less damage than anything else?

Honestly I am not trying to be a jerk but you have to realise how absurd this is all sounding.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: soulwaxer

So you can't actually back up your claims.

Saying "read a 1000 page pdf and watch this 5 hour video" doesn't quite cut it for me, honestly if you are a proponent of this theory I would expect you to be able to just explain it and post relevant links.

I actually watched the first 15-20 mins of the video.

Dimitri also claims that the planes were holograms do you agree with this?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

No, the planes were not holograms.

And you know very well that 9/11 was waaaay too complex to explain in a couple of posts in this thread. If you don't want to watch the complete video or read the pdf, then you do not have the will to know what really happened. Although you have made it quite obvious that you know a lot more than you are letting on.

soulwaxer

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: soulwaxer

The US government was completely caught off guard on 9/11 by the perpetrators (who were not the terrorists), and to avoid A LOT more casualties, they brought the buildings down with the built-in nuclear demolition scheme.

Agreed they were caught with their pants down so at least we can kind of agree on something. However....

your post again raises more questions that it answers so who were the perpetrators of the attack and why the hell would the government think a nuclear detonation in the middle of New York could possibly cause less damage than anything else?

Honestly I am not trying to be a jerk but you have to realise how absurd this is all sounding.

Like I said in a post above, there is a huge difference between an underground nuclear detonation and an atmospheric one. VERY HUGE DIFFERENCE. They were forced to make a choice...

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

Right this is good we are getting somewhere.

So....

No, the planes were not holograms.

So you agree that Dimitri is wrong in his assumption that the planes were holograms.

So why are you willing to believe that he is right about something equally as crazy, the nukes?

a reply to: soulwaxer

The reason they feared A LOT more casualties can be found in what was found at the end of that hole in the Pentagon.

What was at the end of that hole in the Pentagon?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: soulwaxer

As I predicted in my OP, this thread is being FLOODED by some very familiar members, on a Tuesday during working hours in the US, with the very familiar tactics.

Flooded....

Not exactly there are just a few of us who are challenging your views thats all.

Also its 17:20 right now in the UK, you do realise of course that ATS is frequented by people from all over the world.

There is a reason for that. Can anyone guess what that reason might be?

errrmmm...

Because its a discussion forum and thats what people do on the interwebs??

Do you have another theory.

Yes, I have another theory. But I'm going to decline giving it to you. You know, T&C and all.

soulwaxer

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: soulwaxer

The reason they feared A LOT more casualties can be found in what was found at the end of that hole in the Pentagon.

What was at the end of that hole in the Pentagon?

An unexploded 150 kilo-ton thermo-nuclear warhead.

(It was meant to not explode.)

souwaxer

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: soulwaxer

Right this is good we are getting somewhere.

So....

No, the planes were not holograms.

So you agree that Dimitri is wrong in his assumption that the planes were holograms.

So why are you willing to believe that he is right about something equally as crazy, the nukes?

Sorry OSOTC, but your tactics will not work on me. I'm going to save some space in this thread and ignore your posts. Reply to this however you like.

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

Yes, I have another theory. But I'm going to decline giving it to you. You know, T&C and all.

There is no 9/11 theory that goes against the T&Cs.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

There was radiation measured. And cancer rates skyrocketed. It's just never reported.

Prove it, show me actual data that proves radiation levels in New York consistent with that of a nuclear detonation.

Show me actual accounts of people coming down with radiation sickness in the aftermath of the attacks, actually prove it.

If you are making a claim as if it is a fact then provide evidence for it otherwise your "fact" is much like my "fact" about how the sky is actually a giant glass dome.

Its top secret radiation it only shows up on conspiracy blogs and websites. Sadly people believe this when someone lies to them. Thr illnesses related to 9/11 were from dust inhalation mostly. There was never radiation involved unless your trying to sell a book to the gullible.

a reply to: dragonridr

Sell a book you say

What?

You mean Demiti is just trying to sell a book....

My dear readers! I hate to publish such a request repeatedly, but it seems that I have no choice: money I got as a payment for my book or as donations are not enough for me to survive. I am completely broke now and have no money to continue my work and not even enough money to pay for my room! This is one of the main reasons why I disappeared from public view and why I stopped all my research activities since I was released from the Thai prison in 2015. It is because I have NO MONEY simply. You can't expect much response from a street beggar. I have great plans such as translating my book into other languages, increasing circulation of this information, and I even have plans to create an entirely new work on the corporate nature of modern states and all related technicalities (which are actually even more shocking and more scandalous than the WTC nuclear demolition). But due to the fact that only less than 0.01% of my "grateful" readers prefer to pay for my book, I have no means to survive and to continue working. So, anyone who understood me wrongly, thinking that I allegedly distributed my book "for free", please, be informed that you deceived yourself into thinking so. This book was only free to download, but I still expect some payment for reading it. I clearly stated in its text that I expect every reader of it to pay whatever amount they deemed appropriate. I am serious. And any kind of donations, on top of paying for the actual book, are welcome too. I am in a really, really desperate financial situation now!

www.911thology.com...

No....!