Federal Grand Jury To Hear Evidence - World Trade Center 9-11 Was Controlled Demolition.

a reply to: neutronflux

Unfortunately, that's just your opinion. One that is belligerent, ignorant, and ill-informed.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

So you joined ATS because you hate people like us?

What does that have to do with you not being able to create a valid argument and proof of nukes at the WTC

a reply to: neutronflux

What does that have to do with you not being able to create a valid argument and proof of nukes at the WTC

I have. For several pages now. Thanks for the help.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

Unfortunately, that's just your opinion. One that is belligerent, ignorant, and ill-informed.

Then the below should be easy for you to debunk with actual video, audio, medical reports, radiation studies, and seismographs from the WTC.

One, no proof the WTC foundations were broken / undermined by an underground explosion.

Two: no P and S waves indicative of a detonation. The seismic data frequencies were too slow to be from a detonation.

Three, the twin tower core columns failed last. The core columns provided resistance through the entire collapse.

Four, video proves the collapse initiation of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were columns bowing then buckling at the point of jet impacts.

Five, each twin tower was reported minutes ahead of collapse to be buckling and leaning at the point of jet impacts.

Six. No evidence of underground detonation. No dust rising from the ground, no dust shaken from twin towers, no windows being broken.

Seven, no indication of radiation above background.

Eight, video and audio do not support the nuke theories.

a reply to: neutronflux

Easy, already addressed. Look back at the thread. Oh aggravated one.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

What does that have to do with you not being able to create a valid argument and proof of nukes at the WTC

I have. For several pages now. Thanks for the help.

With you pushing a photo of burning paper as molten steel, quoting a source falsely stating there was P and S waves from the WTC, and pushing cancers caused by WTC smoke and chemically toxic dust is evidence of radiation?

a reply to: neutronflux

Yes. But the opposite of everything you just said.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

Easy, already addressed. Look back at the thread. Oh aggravated one.

I will address and answer your concerns. You ignore questions leveled at you.

Then answer this:
Then if an underground detonation started the collapse of WTC 2, how did its core fall after the floor system. How did the buckling occur at the point of the jet impact some eighty floors up with no visible failure of the the core failing or dropping. If it was an underground detonation, how did the core offer resistance to slow down the upper 30 or 29 floors falling into the building below.

a reply to: neutronflux

I answered it. Please go back and actually read the sources, the thread itself. Links posts all of it. You're a broken record that didn't listen the first dozen times.

You are being belligerent and ignorant. I understand that you are aggravated. I will leave you to your homework.

a reply to: tadaman

Then it’s should be easy for to to quote the post and provide a link.

a reply to: tadaman

How does this video in the linked to post below support nukes in the bedrock?

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

a reply to: tadaman

Then you can cite a medical study that links WTC cancers to radiation, not chemicals from the WTC smoke and dust?

a reply to: tadaman

Then the NASA thermal imaging of the WTC pile after collapse should show the pile was hot enough to support liquid steel?

Damn, 1 post per minute. Wow.

I'm in your head. Cool.

a reply to: tadaman

Is it false there were reports the twin towers were buckling and leaning minutes before collapse. How does that fit with your supposed nuclear detonation timeline?

a reply to: tadaman

How does the below facts support underground nuclear detonations?

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolition

www.skeptic.com...

The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

2.3 is what was recorded in palisades. Usually more meters would give a better readout.

Its strange all the seismic meters in NYC were off huh.

What was it like to post the above, and then find out Protec was doing seismic monitoring in Manhattan on 9/11?

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
By Brent Blanchard
August 8, 2006
c-2006 www.implosionworld.com

www.implosionworld.com...

a reply to: tadaman

If an underground nuclear device caused the WTC buildings to collapse, why did the core columns have to be cut from the foundation? Why was the slurry wall not breached. You are implying at least three nukes were detonated under Manhattan? How would there be any stable bed rock left to build new skyscrapers?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

No melted metal huh?

Is the below metabunk link proving the above picture is buring paper false?

a-molten-metal-9-11-photo-is-just-burning-paper.t9982/

www.metabunk.org...

Or you starting to understand the truth movement is full of charlatans pushing falsehoods?