A New-To-Me Theory on 9/11

a reply to: pteridine

I'm not claiming expert status. It's entirely possible that the Pyrocool helped, but maybe it didn't. Either way, it's rather beside the point.

The point is that the NIST claim that burning office fires and gravity could not possibly have caused the damage observed.

Like so many other official explanations, it fails.

Office fires, jetfuel and gravity could not have caused the damage observed. Such fires could not possibly have caused hot spots seen from space. They could not possibly have caused the towers to collapse at near free fall speeds.

911 was an inside job, and everybody knows it.

a reply to: Salander

proven wrong about melted steel, change the subject.

Where’s the evidence of melted steel, or is it just a blatant truth movement lie.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

I'm not claiming expert status. It's entirely possible that the Pyrocool helped, but maybe it didn't. Either way, it's rather beside the point.

The point is that the NIST claim that burning office fires and gravity could not possibly have caused the damage observed.

Like so many other official explanations, it fails.

Office fires, jetfuel and gravity could not have caused the damage observed. Such fires could not possibly have caused hot spots seen from space. They could not possibly have caused the towers to collapse at near free fall speeds.

911 was an inside job, and everybody knows it.

You are not claiming expert status but claim "Office fires, jetfuel and gravity could not have caused the damage observed. Such fires could not possibly have caused hot spots seen from space. They could not possibly have caused the towers to collapse at near free fall speeds."
On what basis are you claiming this, as you say you are not an expert? On what basis are you claiming isotopic heating if you are not an expert? The boiling point of iron is 2862 degrees C [which is almost 5200 F]. What isotope can maintain that temperature and what would enclose it? Why would there even be fissionable materials present?

a reply to: pteridine

Late to the game, a German nuclear physicist named Heinz Pommer examined all the available facts and evidence about 2 years ago. His findings will blow your mind if you dare read them.

Yes, it was a nuclear event that made all those first responders display radiation sickness.

Read it if your mind is curious and seeks knowledge.

www.veteranstoday.com...

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Late to the game, a German nuclear physicist named Heinz Pommer examined all the available facts and evidence about 2 years ago. His findings will blow your mind if you dare read them.

Yes, it was a nuclear event that made all those first responders display radiation sickness.

Read it if your mind is curious and seeks knowledge.

www.veteranstoday.com...

One. No radiation sickness is documented.

Two. If radiation was so powerful to make structural steel boil for three months, then the rubber and fluids in the heavy machinery should have boiled. While frying electronics. People would have died from radiation with minutes at being at the WTC pile. If the radiation that was supposedly “boiling” steel wouldn’t have boiled their brains first.


Third, There is no indication the steel was worked by any explosives.

Fourth. Is it false long segments of unmelted core columns had to be cut from the foundations to be removed.

The radiation argument is a blatant lie.

a reply to: Salander

Radiation sickness ???

I know a lot of people who worked on that pile, In fact one of them was trapped in stairway of North Tower with his crew when building collapsed

None of them got radiation sickness

In recent years people who worked there have been afflicted with illness from inhaling toxic smoke and dusts

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Late to the game, a German nuclear physicist named Heinz Pommer examined all the available facts and evidence about 2 years ago. His findings will blow your mind if you dare read them.

Yes, it was a nuclear event that made all those first responders display radiation sickness.

Read it if your mind is curious and seeks knowledge.

www.veteranstoday.com...

I think you don't understand the effects of nuclear weapons. From the comments section of your link

"This is nonsense due to a number of very reasonable observations.

1. The basement (B6) slab wasn’t damaged. So how does a destructive wave rise into the towers?
2. 14 people survived in the core at stair B near the 4th floor right where the destructive wave would have been strongest.
3. There are no bottom to top indications of a rising damage wave.
4. How does this smart damage wave know to stop rising at F94 (WTC1) and F78 (WTC2) and magically reverse direction?
5. If this publication cites the widely claimed “molten granite” myth, it has been proven that this is a geologic feature in the schist rock, outside the bathtub underneath WTC4, not either tower. There is no granite at the WTC location.

Given the above, there are serious problems with the nuke theory, no matter how cleverly described."

Stevie Jones' doppelganger wants attention so he postulates that nukes did it but he casually neglects the theory ending facts above.

a reply to: firerescue

Are you familiar with the Zadroga Bill? Many people were made sick, and the sickness was from radiation poisoning. The air was toxic and the ground was toxic.

www.congress.gov...

Pteridine

I will go with Heinz Pommer's analysis any day. Yours is not persuasive at all. Yours is merely a regurgitation of government talking points, an apology for the lies told by known liars.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue

Are you familiar with the Zadroga Bill? Many people were made sick, and the sickness was from radiation poisoning. The air was toxic and the ground was toxic.

www.congress.gov...

Pteridine

I will go with Heinz Pommer's analysis any day. Yours is not persuasive at all. Yours is merely a regurgitation of government talking points, an apology for the lies told by known liars.

So sick and shameless. You wonder why people treat the truth movement with no credible?

Are you familiar with the Zadroga Bill? Many people were made sick, and the sickness was from radiation poisoning. The air was toxic and the ground was toxic.

a reply to: Salander

Yes I am well aware of it

As pointed out the people were made sick from toxic smoke caused by burning plastics and dust which contained all manner of toxic materials

NOT RADIATION

DO YOU UNDERTAND THAT ……!!!

a reply to: firerescue

I could agree with you and we would both be wrong.

Not plastics, radioactivity.

And part of the dust inhaled by so many might have been radioactive, after the fission events underground, like the one described by William Rodriguez, who was there.

Not fires so much as radioactivity, as described by fireman Matt Tartaglia who was there. And whose teeth fell out about 4 years later and he was dead by 5. He described what he had been ordered to do.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue

I could agree with you and we would both be wrong.

Not plastics, radioactivity.

And part of the dust inhaled by so many might have been radioactive, after the fission events underground, like the one described by William Rodriguez, who was there.

Not fires so much as radioactivity, as described by fireman Matt Tartaglia who was there. And whose teeth fell out about 4 years later and he was dead by 5. He described what he had been ordered to do.

Your messed in the head. There was no radiation above background levels.

Your fantasy is ridiculous.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue

Pteridine
I will go with Heinz Pommer's analysis any day. Yours is not persuasive at all. Yours is merely a regurgitation of government talking points, an apology for the lies told by known liars.

Heinz is not persuasive at all. None of those proposing nukes have any clue what a nuke would do and what the effects were. If an entity wanted to use covert demolitions to take down buildings, a nuke is the last way they would do it.

If you think about it, it would have been more effective if the towers had remained standing as swords of Damocles hanging over the city. How would they be taken down safely? How would they be reinforced before disassembly and who would do it? At what cost of lives, time, and money?

a reply to: pteridine

A nuclear physicist is not persuasive at all? I suspect you did not bother to download and read the document. It takes a few hours to go through the whole thing.

The nuclear explanation is the only thing that accounts for all the facts observed. Nuclear fission took place there, besides Matt Tartaglia many other people were made sick and died.

60 years of R&D in nuclear weaponry will produce much.

The towers were constructed for their eventual demolition, vertical shafts and more. People got sick, and cars with weird burn patterns were all over the streets of Manhattan.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

A nuclear physicist is not persuasive at all? I suspect you did not bother to download and read the document. It takes a few hours to go through the whole thing.

The nuclear explanation is the only thing that accounts for all the facts observed. Nuclear fission took place there, besides Matt Tartaglia many other people were made sick and died.

60 years of R&D in nuclear weaponry will produce much.

The towers were constructed for their eventual demolition, vertical shafts and more. People got sick, and cars with weird burn patterns were all over the streets of Manhattan.

Sally,
Stevie Jones was not persuasive because he either didn't understand thermodynamics or lied for the attention. I do remember using the data in his paper to disprove his theory.
There are too many inconsistencies in the nuclear fission theory and no evidence for it at all. Maybe Heinz just wants some attention, too.

a reply to: pteridine

Or push a manufactured product to a target audience that will literally believe anything.

a reply to: pteridine

I'm not talking about Steve Jones. I'm talking about Heinz Pommer.

So far it seems you fear watching the analysis.....

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

I'm not talking about Steve Jones. I'm talking about Heinz Pommer.

So far it seems you fear watching the analysis.....

My comment was directed toward your appeal to authority arguing that Heinz is a physicist is the same tactic that tried to give Jones credibility. Neither is credible.
I fear nothing of the sort.

a reply to: Salander

This video was uploaded onto yt (in English) just 3 weeks ago and was filmed at the end of 2019.


There was 3000 people in the audience......and more than 100,000 watched the event live online.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

And they are all idiots if they think nukes and nuclear reactions brought down the WTC.

Sorry. It’s just a delusional fantasy by a snake oil salesmen profiting by pushing a manufactured fantasy to a target audience.