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

a reply to: username74

Right and that prompted an internal power struggle by patriots in the MIC.

Obama couldn't eliminate them. We won't hear from them until they execute a silent coup.

If we do it will be missed by most and only to confirm that the ball dropped and they are in command.

It's more like a shadow of the former shadow government.

They protected the last presidential election. They were armed and primed to act if voters were assaulted in false flag type interventions.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: mrthumpy

the explosion is set so the top of the sphere created in the rock by the blast, just breaks the floor of the basement (7 storeys)
this is at the end of the blast, ~12 secs in, the shockwave has a range which turned out to be a little too small.
the shockwave pulverises the building and everything in it.
it does not travel thru air.
the hole begins to suck (because its now a vacuum).
there is leakage from the top of the pit but they waited till it cooled down and sealed it.

That must be what caused the towers to start collapsing from the top. It's so obvious!

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: mrthumpy

Only as standard as sky scrapers were when first built.

If you think it's absurd then you have not read much of mid century planners.

They wanted to nuke the ionosphere and the moon out of curiosity.

You think a 1 KT nuke would make them bat an eye?

Especially when the application can be precise to a few meters.

What could possibly be absurd about planting nuclear bombs in skyscrapers in case you want to demolish them in an emergency.

a reply to: mrthumpy

The top stayed intact. The destructive shock wave ended 2/3rds the way up.

The pulverized material collapsed since the weight of the top portion was still bearing down on a pulverized base.

That's why everything was broken down to finite particles as seen in ADM detonations in the outer layers of gas storage caverns.

The forces involved are well understood should you try to inform yourself.

The science of nuclear explosions is well understood and documented.

a reply to: mrthumpy

So that's your opinion. It doesn't address my points made.

It's a call to emotion and groupthink disbelief.
Disprove it or don't.

a reply to: mrthumpy

watch it again.
the device was not big enough to take the very top.
watch the second tower to collapse.
the top falls into the dust
almost like a cartoon the pulverised building is solid and then gives way to the weight of the intact top section that was untouched

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: mrthumpy

The top stayed intact. The destructive shock wave ended 2/3rds the way up.

The pulverized material collapsed since the weight of the top portion was still bearing down on a pulverized base.

That's why everything was broken down to finite particles as seen in ADM detonations in the outer layers of gas storage caverns.

The forces involved are well understood should you try to inform yourself.

The science of nuclear explosions is well understood and documented.

That's hilarious. Thanks

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: mrthumpy

watch it again.
the device was not big enough to take the very top.
watch the second tower to collapse.
the top falls into the dust
almost like a cartoon the pulverised building is solid and then gives way to the weight of the intact top section that was untouched

Makes perfect sense. The pulverised building stayed intact until the collapse front reached it

a reply to: username74

Nukes are so ridiculous.

One, there was nothing indicative of a nuclear blast.

Two, no evidence nukes placed under the towers.

Three. The bottoms of the core columns were cut from the WTC foundations to be removed.

Four, The collapse of the twin towers clearly stated at the point of jet impacts.

See video for WTC 2 collapse initiation in link below.

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

Five. The cores for the towers fell last. The core offered resistance at the base of the twin towers.

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.

Six. There is no indication of collapse initiation from the base of the WTC buildings up.
Read below link

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...

Seven, the slurry wall around the WTC foundation was not breached.

Eight, there is zero seismic evidence nukes were detonated under Manhattan islands.

Nine, how would the bedrock under Manhattan islands be stable enough to build new skyscrapers after three underground nukes were set off.

Ten, no indication a shockwave originated under the WTC.

a reply to: tadaman

Yet floor connections were recovered, and give testimony the floor connections were removed from the core / vertical columns.

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

Which shows the floor connections were sheared away from still standing vertical steel columns.

There is zero evidence explosions under the WTC foundations triggered the witnessed collapses.

a reply to: neutronflux

The outer walls sure. Care to explain how we had high temperatures underground zero for weeks after?

That jet fuel burned AGAIN?

There was that one section of beams that were cut up for memorials sure. That's all that was left after ALL that steel????

How do you explain that most debris came from the top sections?

Why was it pulverized the way it was? That's a HUGE oddity

You must have an explanation to be so sure. Right?

a reply to: tadaman

The outer walls sure. Care to explain how we had high temperatures underground zero for weeks after?

One, define high temps.

Two, it’s called the items smoldering by a limited air supply. As in a process similar to how wood use to be buried to make charcoal.

Three, the most damning argument against you” Care to explain how we had high temperatures underground zero for weeks.”

You need to explain how the radiation from fission products would keep the pile hot enough to smolder for weeks with no radiation detectable above background. The radiation levels would be greater than Fukushima. People would have died from radiation poisoning when hours arriving at the pile. This alone kills the nuke narrative.

a reply to: tadaman

There was that one section of beams that were cut up for memorials sure. That's all that was left after ALL that steel????

The WTC vertical columns had ID’s on them. Is that false? So, by WTC Column ID, which columns were missing?

Extremely high temperatures were evident before and during the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and at Ground Zero. Seven minutes before the destruction of the South Tower, a flow of molten metal appeared, accompanied by several smaller flows, as documented by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The material’s glowing color showed that its temperature was close to “white hot” at the very beginning of the flow and “yellow-orange” further down. Iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust are additional proof of temperatures above the melting point of iron. Pyroclastic-like, rapidly expanding dust clouds after the destruction of the Towers can also be explained only by the expansion of hot gases.

www1.ae911truth.org...

As far as radiation. 1 KT device would entomb the low levels associated with the burst instantly and they would become negligible shortly after. Maybe a week.

People did get radiation sickness. They just weren't diagnosed with such.....by US doctors.

There are many issues left unresolved with first responder sickness.

Medical professionals have come out since with their suspicion of radiation sickness being the cause of first responder health issues.

How many dead from cancer? Failed thyroid glands....coincidence?

a reply to: tadaman

How does 1 Kt device produce enough fission products to keep 1,000,000 tons of rubble hot for weeks. It’s doesn’t. That Alone kills your theory and evidence. To keep 1,000,000 tons of rubble hot you need a source like the Fukushima reactor.


Molten metal. Ok it was a mixture of lead, copper, aluminum with burning plastic mixed in. So?

a reply to: neutronflux

I am not a weapons specialist to be able to determine the exact yield.

It was low. These devices were designed to be compact. Look at the link I posted earlier

What you said makes no sense. There is absolutely no way for JET FUEL to burn through that much steel. And NOT for weeks as we SAW. MANY SAW with their own eyes. Molten hot weeks later...

You can't explain that away. Your argument actually reinforces mine.

a reply to: tadaman

Burned through what steel. There was no melted columns.

Please produce evidence the pile was ever hot enough to support liquid steel.

a reply to: tadaman

Give you a hint. NASA imaging never indicated WTC temps at the pile hot enough to support liquid flowing steel.

a reply to: neutronflux



No melted metal huh?

a reply to: tadaman

Debunked as paper.

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

If that was molten metal because of radiative reactions, the person taking the photo would have died with in hours from radiation poisoning.