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

Same thing that happened when the Panama papers dropped. It will fade away like all the other papers before it. Even if they said who did it, nothing would happen.

a reply to: neutronflux

911-truth.net...
go on, lol
third of the way down
'9-11thology'
pdf download
probably too much for you.

a reply to: JourneymanWelder

lol, aint that the truth.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: kwakakev

'granit' antiship missile from the kursk hit pentagon. didnt go off.
worried about devices on 'planes' could cause airburst blast.
pulled towers. nuclear demolition confirmed.

There is no why a four foot diameter missile made an entrance hole into the pentagon 93 feet wide at the wings, and two stories tall at the tail section.

And the clips from the pentagon shows a jet.

Blink Comparator Views of
the Plane at the Pentagon

911speakout.org...

You are confusing the large gap in the wall of the Pentagon caused by its collapse and the original small hole too small to have ever allowed a whole commercial jet to pass through. And the frames in the SINGLE clip show a plane, not a large commercial jet. The distinction is highly significant.

edit on 4-1-2019 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.

a reply to: micpsi

i know, i know.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: neutronflux

911-truth.net...
go on, lol
third of the way down
'9-11thology'
pdf download
probably too much for you.

No it’s not. I guess you cannot article a logical and realistic rebuttal off a fantasy piece.

There no seismic evidence to support a nuclear detonation.

There was no nukes buried. Where did the money, equipment, and manpower come to dig, place the nukes, and back fill?

video clearly shows the collapse of each tower started at the areas of impacts working down, with no indication of a shockwave running up the towers. For example, no wave of broken windows surging towards the top of the buildings.

There is no evidence of a dropped core, and the base of the core columns were still firmly embedded in the bedrock after collapse.

And the idea nukes didn’t cause any detectable seismic activity, was buried just deep enough to cause no ground upheaval at the surface, didn’t cause a collapse, didn’t breach the slurry wall around the towers, left vertical columns standing at the foundation, did not damage the ground where special prep was needed for the new towers, but caused just enough of a miracle bump to induce inward bowing and inward buckling 80 and 90 floors above ground is pure fiction.

Again, your fantasy is not supported by video evidence. And not support by physics.

HD footage of underground nuclear tests 1980s
m.youtube.com...

There is no way two or three different nukes were set off in close proximity under Manhattan Island where you could rebuild new towers on the bedrock.

a reply to: neutronflux

you just read 1100 pages of backstory and evidence?
wow!

a reply to: username74

Would you like to link a post to the actual pentagon entrance hole.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham | Oct 7, 2016
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

The Missile Hypothesis
The missile hypothesis cannot explain the spatial characteristics of the physical damage. The light poles were effectively 100 feet apart, and the generator-trailer and low concrete wall were effectively 43 feet apart. These objects could not all have been impacted by a missile. The shape and size of the impact hole precludes a missile, the damaged internal columns were spaced apart over a wide area, and the bowed and abraded columns could not have been rendered in such a condition by a missile. A missile could possibly have created the C ring hole, but only plane parts were found in the debris in the AE Drive.

Donald Rumsfeld alluded to a missile, and eyewitness Mike Walter spoke of a missile, but in the metaphorical sense of a plane acting as a missile. These comments fueled the missile hypothesis. But no witnesses claimed to have seen a missile. Witnesses overwhelmingly described a large plane. The missile hypothesis fails the test of the scientific method and the analysis shows the hypothesis is false.

Conclusion
Despite the clear evidence and its analysis using the scientific method of large plane impact, a substantial portion of the 9/11 truth movement, including accepted leaders and those involved in major organizations, continues to publicly endorse, adhere to, or promulgate talks, writings and films on false Pentagon hypotheses. Some simply offer criticisms and reject or ignore evidence that would bring closure to the argument. There is clear evidence by way of disintegrating truth groups that these endorsements and communications are injurious to the movement.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: neutronflux

you just read 1100 pages of backstory and evidence?
wow!

Sad to see you have no real sense of reality, or coherent explanations for nukes.

a reply to: neutronflux

page 646 to page 653

a reply to: micpsi

Your argument is total bogus and sad.

Pre-Collapse Damage

Compositing Photographs to Determine Impact Damage

911research.wtc7.net...

Due to the presence of smoke and firefighting operations after the explosion at the Pentagon, no single photograph shows the full extent of the damage to the facade before the collapse of the overhanging section. However, the maximum extent of punctures to the facade have been determined by compositing a number of photographs. This process allows us to determine the dimensions of the region with punctured walls:

about 96 feet wide across the first floor
about 18 feet wide across the second floor
about than 26 feet high in the center
The following composition was created by the author of the guardian site.

Although the composition is reasonably accurate, it does not use the best avialable photographs of impact damage. For more photographs and better-resolution photographs, see the pre-collapse damage photographs in the Pentagon attack evidence section. Also a detailed damage assessment is provided in the article Pentagon -- Exterior Impact Damage.

a reply to: neutronflux

hey you know what sort of explosion this is?

www.pensitoreview.com...

a reply to: username74

Your list you cannot article a rebuttal against

The first common sense questions, supposedly three buildings at the WTC were brought down by CD. All three buildings fell at different times. The recorded seismic activity started outnsmall, grew, spiked, and then trailed off for WTC 1 and 2. What times were the supposed nuclear detonations that supposedly brought down each building in relation to each collapse time? And why didn’t the seismic readings instantly spike, then trail off?

There no seismic evidence to support a nuclear detonation.

There was no nukes buried. Where did the money, equipment, and manpower come to dig, place the nukes, and back fill?

video clearly shows the collapse of each tower started at the areas of impacts working down, with no indication of a shockwave running up the towers. For example, no wave of broken windows surging towards the top of the buildings.

There is no evidence of a dropped core, and the base of the core columns were still firmly embedded in the bedrock after collapse.

And the idea nukes didn’t cause any detectable seismic activity, was buried just deep enough to cause no ground upheaval at the surface, didn’t cause a collapse, didn’t breach the slurry wall around the towers, left vertical columns standing at the foundation, did not damage the ground where special prep was needed for the new towers, but caused just enough of a miracle bump to induce inward bowing and inward buckling 80 and 90 floors above ground is pure fiction.

Again, your fantasy is not supported by video evidence. And not support by physics.



HD footage of underground nuclear tests 1980s
m.youtube.com...



There is no way two or three different nukes were set off in close proximity under Manhattan Island where you could rebuild new towers on the bedrock.

a reply to: username74

Would you like to cite the actual collapse video of WTC 1 and WTC 2 to support your nuke fantasy?

a reply to: username74

So you cannot cite the actual seismic evidence, the actual video evidenced, the actual audience evidence. There is zero evidence nukes were detonated under Manhattan island. And you cannot form actual rebuttals to questions leveled out you. And your pentagon arguments rely on falsehoods repeatedly debunked.

Why should I find you credible. Because you post a page number or two.

While you rant more than you most actual facts?

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: neutronflux

muh reality!!!

I guess because the above...

a reply to: neutronflux


so you know what kind of explosion that picture shows?

a reply to: micpsi

he went back and edited it didnt he?

a reply to: username74

Your list you cannot article a rebuttal against

The first common sense questions, supposedly three buildings at the WTC were brought down by CD. All three buildings fell at different times. The recorded seismic activity started outnsmall, grew, spiked, and then trailed off for WTC 1 and 2. What times were the supposed nuclear detonations that supposedly brought down each building in relation to each collapse time? And why didn’t the seismic readings instantly spike, then trail off?

There no seismic evidence to support a nuclear detonation.

There was no nukes buried. Where did the money, equipment, and manpower come to dig, place the nukes, and back fill?

video clearly shows the collapse of each tower started at the areas of impacts working down, with no indication of a shockwave running up the towers. For example, no wave of broken windows surging towards the top of the buildings.

There is no evidence of a dropped core, and the base of the core columns were still firmly embedded in the bedrock after collapse.

And the idea nukes didn’t cause any detectable seismic activity, was buried just deep enough to cause no ground upheaval at the surface, didn’t cause a collapse, didn’t breach the slurry wall around the towers, left vertical columns standing at the foundation, did not damage the ground where special prep was needed for the new towers, but caused just enough of a miracle bump to induce inward bowing and inward buckling 80 and 90 floors above ground is pure fiction.

Again, your fantasy is not supported by video evidence. And not support by physics.



HD footage of underground nuclear tests 1980s
m.youtube.com...



There is no way two or three different nukes were set off in close proximity under Manhattan Island where you could rebuild new towers on the bedrock.