What to expect if the 9/11 truth bomb does drop

It would be too late and too far removed from the time it happened to have any effect now.

a reply to: kwakakev

At this point it can be dangerous because some of these traitors can have a plan B "to safe" the USA....or should I say the world. I believe this mega crime was...and still is part of installing a new world order. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes will this order create order from the chaos. When this satanic club will notice their game is over they will maybe pull the plug as a last resort and have their order the hard way....the very hard way.

How much would I like to see somekind of domino effect starting from within...rats ratting the rats. To see all those domino's fall exponentially from the centre of this criminal organisation. But first...who has the authority higher than the highest court judge...who has this impecable uncorrupted and credible reputation to take these corrupted psychopaths on? How can you unite other countries to go after these lunatics? Because that is what it will take to end this international cabal of criminals with the resources of a nation.

All over the western world government agencies are involved with what happened on september 11 2001. Maybe not the lower level employees but surely their leaders and those instructing them. What about the monarchs in europe..? What will it take to put some of them in jail?

Going to the bottom of this conspiracy will be a monumental task and ending it be a victory for humanity in general. But unfortunately I am afraid this will never happen in the world we live in. There is one force with the authority and able to judge all those involved rightiously. That identity will be God and can only hope He will do so the moment they will appear before Him. He knows and sees all.

a reply to: info393

I suspect it would have a profound effect, depending on how it came about.

Depending on how the question is asked, most people (85%) believe the official story to be fishy at best. Most know the government is hiding something.

It would all depend on how the media handled it.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: info393

I suspect it would have a profound effect, depending on how it came about.

Depending on how the question is asked, most people (85%) believe the official story to be fishy at best. Most know the government is hiding something.

It would all depend on how the media handled it.

Vs. the right out truth movement lie of nukes at the WTC.

What is your theory on what brought down the twin towers again? Care to share?

You

Depending on how the question is asked, most people (85%) believe the official story to be fishy at best.

Then what question was asked to get the 85% by what source.

You

Most know the government is hiding something.

Yes, I would say 99 percent of the people believe the government glossed over its incompetence that lead to 9/11. And those same people would have liked to seen actual accountability.

LIHOP vs MIHOP, and you don't need planted explosive to collapse a building when you have a loaded 767 to do it for you.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
LIHOP vs MIHOP, and you don't need planted explosive to collapse a building when you have a loaded 767 to do it for you.

Really? Frank A. DeMartini, manager of the WTC construction project who died on 9/11 thought otherwise. He designed them to withstand the impact of a loaded 707.

When you get yourself more informed, you won't make such a silly remark.

deleted,

a reply to: micpsi

Guess what ? De Martini was right the buildings could survive an aircraft impact

The buildings did survive the impact of the 767, which is 15% bigger than 707

Tower 2 (South) collapsed an hour later, Tower 1 (North) 1 hr 45 min after impact

It was the subsequent fires which weakened the steel and caused the structural collapse …...

a reply to: firerescue

Not really.

Kevin Ryan who worked at the time for Underwriters Laboratory pointed out quickly that structural steel is a poor conductor of heat, and that all the steel had met the building code requirements.

Of course he was soon fired from his job for speaking the truth.

The official story including the NIST fantasy is pure propaganda and psychobabble that fails upon examination.

a reply to: Salander

and that all the steel had met the building code requirements.

It’s well documented the WTC fire insulation was compromised before 9/11.

The jets knocked off fire insulation. The jets also took out outer vertical columns, floor trusses, left floor panels hanging, and took out core columns.

There is video of outer columns bowing inward and buckling from fire related stresses, with no evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns.

Please link to or provide video showing WTC columns in the act of being cut by planted pyrotechnics.

a reply to: Salander

Kevin Ryan who worked at the time for Underwriters Laboratory pointed out

Ah Yes - Kevin Ryan Aka "WATER BOY"

Ryan's job was testing of water purification systems

He was not a structural engineer

Underwrites Laboratory fired him for giving an opinion about which he was not qualified and for dragging then into the
controversy

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue
Kevin Ryan who worked at the time for Underwriters Laboratory pointed out quickly that structural steel is a poor conductor of heat, and that all the steel had met the building code requirements.

He was right about thermal conductivity and anyone who ever worked with steel in forging, tempering, cutting, grinding, welding will attest to that. However he's totally wrong in what it means in terms of failure mechanisms when subjected to fire IE steel is very easily raised to high temperatures locally because heat is not conducted very well away from the site where the heat is being applied. I work with steel and it's easy to heat up one end of a steel rod to red heat for forging, tempering, annealing etc while holding the other end in a bare hand but don't try that with a better thermal conductor like Cu, Al etc.

So the poor thermal conduction actually enhances the potential weakening of steel at the site where the heat is applied.

Except he was wrong, and so are you. 2 out of 2 WTC towers collapsed from aircraft impact and fire. We have proof-positive.

What's your evidence again?

Did you review the engineering behind his statement? Any test sequences preformed?

Did he maybe refer to the impact load alone? The same calculations for wind load can be "hijacked" to apply to the impact of so much mass, at such a speed. The towers withstood that, no problem. It's the unanticipated fire damage that collapsed the buildings.

Expect business as usual, no one will be able to react, especially if there is a sports game that day.

a reply to: FlyingFox

The WTC were designed to take a lateral force of 17 million foot lbs before the building would topple over

It was calculated that an impact by a jet aircraft would generate some 13 million foot lbs so would not topple

Problem was at that time could not fire behavior Also failed to consider effect the aircraft impact would have on building systems

The elevators, stairways, sprinkler and fire department risers in stairway were all destroyed by the aircraft impact

As NEUTRONFLUX pointed out the fire proofing was inadequate and prone to flake off the steel The aircraft impact
destroyed the fire proofing exposing the steel to the fires

a reply to: firerescue

When the debate has been lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

Thanks for demonstrating that.

Ryan told the truth, and it threatened the official narrative so he was fired.

a reply to: Pilgrum

I appreciate your honest statement, but office fires cannot heat steel to the point of weakening an 1100 foot tall tower.

The official story fails at every single level. It was an inside job, and that's why the cover-up still exists today.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Pilgrum

I appreciate your honest statement, but office fires cannot heat steel to the point of weakening an 1100 foot tall tower.

The official story fails at every single level. It was an inside job, and that's why the cover-up still exists today.

Then why by code are steel high rise buildings required to by insulated from fire? What made the Plasco building in Tehran collapse? And the high rise building collapse in São Paulo Brazil

Evidence of fire related collapse is on the video record. Can you provide video proof of your pet fantasy of nukes at the WTC?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Pilgrum
I appreciate your honest statement, but office fires cannot heat steel to the point of weakening an 1100 foot tall tower.

It didn't need to weaken the entire structure, just the already compromised steel in the several floors affected by the aircraft impact was enough to set an unstoppable collapse in motion as witnessed.

a reply to: Pilgrum

The entire structure(s) collapsed at essentially free fall speeds. How could the rest of the structure fail so spectacularly without being weakened? That is, after all, what NIST wants us to believe.