A New-To-Me Theory on 9/11

a reply to: Lazarus Short

Ok?

Then you answer to the falsehoods used by Lumenari?



originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Lumenari

The aluminum cell towers on top of the building that you see turn into a mist when the building is collapsing.

Radiation did that without radiation poisoning killing all in Manhattan in a few hours? The radiation levels of Fukushima didn’t do anything of the like?

The satellite images of 2100 degree Celsius temperatures at the foot of the buildings the next day.

Wouldn't the temperatures be more even across he pile? And if radiation and nuclear reactions was causing that kind of heat, your talking radiation levels greater than Fukushima.

The washing of the steel columns before they were sold to China by foam.. what is typically done with something that was irradiated.

Who collected all the contaminated water, and where did it go?

The cars in the video that had paint burned off of them on one side.

With plastic sill intact? What does that have to do with anything than a car hit with burning debris. With none of the people around the towers with burns to their lungs from breathing in super heated air.

You

The amazing cancer footprint in the area afterwards that could not be attributed to mesothelioma.

Fact.

Prostate Cancer: Fighting the “Fire” Within
Issue 12 and Volume 160.
12.1.07

www.fireengineering.com...

The Importance of Washing Turnout Gear: Eagan Fire Department

www.bdslaundry.com...

When Chief Scott began his career as a firefighter in the 1980s having turnout gear covered in soot was a “badge of honor” and washing gear merely consisted of a quick hose down from fellow firefighters. By not washing turnout gear this soot releases carcinogens like sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides into the air. Over exposure to carcinogens comes with a price including coronary heart disease, asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory illnesses.

Yes. The smoke, soot, dust, and the toxic soup in the WTC pile were full of chemical carcinogens. Not radiation.

Anyone that came in contact with the smoke, soot, dust, and toxic chemicals of the WTC would have an increased risk of getting many types of cancer.

You

Silverman (owner of the Trade Towers) had an asbestos abatement problem that would have cost him millions to fix.

Fact.
Is it true only the first twin tower built only had asbestos up to the 64 floor. The second tower built and WTC 7 did not have sprayed on asbestos insulation.

So he got terrorist insurance.

Why wouldn’t he have terrorist insurance? He was required to have the insurance. What does that have to do with physical evidence?

Which paid off 30 days later.

30 days of what? There was a legal battle with the insurance companies over WTC 7. What was the payout vs the total cost to rebuild? Not physical evidence.

Honestly, if anyone on the thread is interested in the theory, investigate it.

Why? Same old truth movement lies, pseudoscience, and everything based on innuendo. And ignoring context.


Or better yet. Provide actual proof the twin towers were brought down by planted pyrotechnics or nukes.

Is it true the bases of the twin tower core columns had to be cut from their foundations? If nukes were used, why did the bases of the core columns have to be cut away from the buildings’ foundations?

Good, you can grasp facts, but we disagree on the interpretation. I don't NECESSARILY buy into nukes, but nukes explain some of the evidence. It could have been something else. I'm fairly certain that jet fuel did not bring the towers down, and if you look at the collapse, and know what you are looking at, the cutting charges are apparent. Can we at least agree it was a controlled demolition?

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
Good, you can grasp facts, but we disagree on the interpretation. I don't NECESSARILY buy into nukes, but nukes explain some of the evidence. It could have been something else. I'm fairly certain that jet fuel did not bring the towers down, and if you look at the collapse, and know what you are looking at, the cutting charges are apparent. Can we at least agree it was a controlled demolition?

No, it was definitely gravity that brought the towers down

Cutting charges?

With no booms?

You mean effects like the ones pictured below?





To bad the pictured collapse was from hydraulic initiated failures, and had nothing to do with cutting charges?

Why wouldn’t a collapse initiated because of thermal stress not look similar?

a reply to: Lazarus Short

Then with the towers, there was a total lack of demolitions shrapnel. From buildings with no tarps, water barrels, or shrapnel traps erected.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Lumenari

You need to start with reality and not relying on false truth movement talking points, truth movement pseudoscience, and out of context innuendo.

If you want to start with reality, go out to your garage and try to weld structural steel with a candle.

Then get back to me.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Lumenari

You need to start with reality and not relying on false truth movement talking points, truth movement pseudoscience, and out of context innuendo.

If you want to start with reality, go out to your garage and try to weld structural steel with a candle.

Then get back to me.

And what does that have to do with the actual collapse initiation of each tower? As captured on video?

In fact what does “ go out to your garage and try to weld structural steel with a candle.“ have to do with your misguided statement of “ cutting charges are apparent”?

did all WTC tower fall on 9/11

or only the three?

originally posted by: Lumenari

If you want to start with reality, go out to your garage and try to weld structural steel with a candle.

Then get back to me.

If you want to start with reality, go out to your garage take a sewing needle with you. Try and bend it. You will see that it takes a lot of force and the needle breaks before it bends very far. Sewing needles are very high quality structural steel with high carbon and chromium content. Now hold the needle in a candle flame, after a few seconds the needle will glow cherry red, after a few more seconds it will glow bright orange. Now remove the needle from the flame and try and bend it. It will bend very easily.

There you have changed the strength of structural steel using only a candle flame.

Try it then get back to me.

originally posted by: serpo
Anyone seen the commercials with 9/11 officials reflecting on the past 2 decades since? They both stressed comrades who responded still dropping like flies - to cancer.

The towers' demise obv solved several problems - from motive to take over Afghanistan poppyfields and Saddam Sumer riches, to asbestos insurance overhaul and more.

But at what grave cost? Countless lives for Globalists sheer ruthless greed!

No major terror attack on US soil was needed for US involvement in Libya, Syria etc, so...

a reply to: neutronflux

The bandwidth you use up promoting the Official Fairy Tale is more frightening. Such effort put into attempting to defend and indefensible story is wasteful.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

The bandwidth you use up promoting the Official Fairy Tale is more frightening. Such effort put into attempting to defend and indefensible story is wasteful.

One. Quote where I ever said trust the government.

Two. Why would I trust a conspiracy movement that exploits 9/11 for personal gain.

Three. How’s the evidence for your pet theory of nukes at the WTC coming along. Still promoting that pile of steaming pseudoscience?

originally posted by: LightYearsAgo

originally posted by: serpo
Anyone seen the commercials with 9/11 officials reflecting on the past 2 decades since? They both stressed comrades who responded still dropping like flies - to cancer.

The towers' demise obv solved several problems - from motive to take over Afghanistan poppyfields and Saddam Sumer riches, to asbestos insurance overhaul and more.

But at what grave cost? Countless lives for Globalists sheer ruthless greed!

No major terror attack on US soil was needed for US involvement in Libya, Syria etc, so...

Only the miserable and illegitimate legislative sophistry called Authorization for Use of Military Force AUMF.

Everything Ike warned about has come to pass.

a reply to: neutronflux

Nonsense NF. There was plenty of shrapnel from the explosions. What used to be called the AMEX building was impaled by massive pieces from the tower and it was about 400' away, Shrapnel blown out 400', that weighed in the thousands of tons, take a powerful force.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Nonsense NF. There was plenty of shrapnel from the explosions. What used to be called the AMEX building was impaled by massive pieces from the tower and it was about 400' away, Shrapnel blown out 400', that weighed in the thousands of tons, take a powerful force.

Debris yes. Demolition’s shrapnel from detonations, no. But thinks for your blatant false post.

a reply to: Salander

Collapse initiation of WTC 2. Zero evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

Ouch, the truth stings.

originally posted by: Salander
Ouch, the truth stings.

As in you posted a blatant falsehood with no supporting evidence of shrapnel from charges setting off? Shrapnel that should be pieces of structural steel, have a eroded and “washed” surface, with sharp edges. Characterized by being scored by high heat and pressure. A specific type of evidence not recovered from the injured nor with human remains. And not found anywhere at the WTC.

It wasn't shrapnel from a hand grenade or even from an artillery round.

It was massive shrapnel resulting from the detonation of powerful explosions of the nuclear variety.

Common sense required to understand.

originally posted by: Salander
It wasn't shrapnel from a hand grenade or even from an artillery round.

It was massive shrapnel resulting from the detonation of powerful explosions of the nuclear variety.

Common sense required to understand.

No. It was debris with no characteristic of shrapnel resulting from a detonation.