Official 9/11 debate!

[snoopy500]

It's not wacky at all. Read the Wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:....E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9Ccrashed.E2.80.9D_zones

We are not allowed to build skyscrapers without having the means to take it down.
This is how skyscrapers are taken down.
Nuclear charge is planted under it (specific distance, depth and power) and it pushes the energy where there is least resistance (upwards through the building) and it pulverizes everything. Steel, everything turns to dust. Once you plant it at a certain angle the side of a building core remains yet the other side is gone into dust.
This is quiet safe for population in the context of radiation.

Everything in Blue turns to dust (building turns into a sand castle up to 325 meters), in Green about 80 meters of it are damaged into pieces and the solid top pushed everything down and it falls with no resistance and most of the building disappears into dust.

That is clear.
The questions is - why did they rush the collapse of the Twins?
WTC7 was taken down with no casualties. But there was a rush to take down the Twins.
There has to be a reason for it that is not necessarily evil.

Thanks for this

 

[Edial]

Thanks for this

That is the complete answer to the mystery of how the 3 buildings fell.
All the other theories have holes in them and none of them respond to the objection of such an incredible amount of dust and a relative disappearance of the debris.

 

[com7fy8]

About debris . . . I am just thinking off the top of my head. So, say as you please

It is clear there were areas of large floor space. This could mean less materials used for walling, therefore less debris.

And all that . . . debris . . . falling on wall material could have crunched it to dust . . . some amount of it, anyway. Other scrapers could have been not so tall, with higher materials to crunch down on lower material, but not starting from as high up.

Also, if steel girding was the support material, what were walls made of? Other scrapers might have brick, but the Twin Towers could have had something . . . crunchable . . . so it would not become a pile of debris and spread out to damage nearby buildings . . . and not spread a tsunami of bricks coming in the doors of nearby buildings, and "washing" over people. It might be good to have a powder puff wall material that can poof.

Whether this is the case or not . . . it might be a good idea. If any of you wants to patent this and make a few mill . . . help yourself

Also, if there were floors which were open, I suppose a plane could keep its wings, if there were not major steel supports to sheer the wings, from one side to the other.

 

[Edial]

About debris . . . I am just thinking off the top of my head. So, say as you please

It is clear there were areas of large floor space. This could mean less materials used for walling, therefore less debris.

And all that . . . debris . . . falling on wall material could have crunched it to dust . . . some amount of it, anyway. Other scrapers could have been not so tall, with higher materials to crunch down on lower material, but not starting from as high up.

Also, if steel girding was the support material, what were walls made of? Other scrapers might have brick, but the Twin Towers could have had something . . . crunchable . . . so it would not become a pile of debris and spread out to damage nearby buildings . . . and not spread a tsunami of bricks coming in the doors of nearby buildings, and "washing" over people. It might be good to have a powder puff wall material that can poof.

Whether this is the case or not . . . it might be a good idea. If any of you wants to patent this and make a few mill . . . help yourself

Also, if there were floors which were open, I suppose a plane could keep its wings, if there were not major steel supports to sheer the wings, from one side to the other.

This is what was left of WTC ...

below WTC being built, first 10 floors out of 110 floors ... so multiply this 10-11 times. And this is just steel, no cement, no glass, desks, elevators, chairs, other materials ... just steel ... and all this fell freefall.
Nothing to crunch, no resistance ...

 

[Edial]

Wikipedia shows how a Nuclear demolition is being made on skyscrapers.
A charge is placed below the building at a specific depth and kiloton.
Once it is detonated the energy pushes where there is least resistance (upwards through the building) and turns everything to dust up to 325 meters.
Next 80 meters become crushed up, "damaged zone".
And the top pressed everything down and it falls down like a sand castle ...
Question is why the Twins were brought down so quickly.
WTC7, which the plane never hit, was brought down and there were no casualties. The Twins had to be brought down quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:....E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9Ccrashed.E2.80.9D_zones

 

[Goonie]

Wikipedia shows how a Nuclear demolition is being made on skyscrapers.
A charge is placed below the building at a specific depth and kiloton.
Once it is detonated the energy pushes where there is least resistance (upwards through the building) and turns everything to dust up to 325 meters.
Next 80 meters become crushed up.
And the top pressed everything down and it falls down like a sand castle ...
Question is why the Twins were brought down so quickly.
WTC7, which the plane never hit, was brought down and there were no casualties. The Twins had to be brought down quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:....E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9Ccrashed.E2.80.9D_zones

Its a pity the towers collapsed from the impact zone, disproving this theory.
http://debunking911.com/collapse.htm
It is wacky to believe that skyscrapers are buiklt with nuclear bombs under them in heavily populated areas. For one thing it would make rebuilding on the site just slightly problematic, radioactivity! Another everybody would know if 2 nuclear bombs had been detonated due to seismology.

 

[Edial]

Its a pity the towers collapsed from the impact zone, disproving this theory.
http://debunking911.com/collapse.htm
It is wacky to believe that skyscrapers are buiklt with nuclear bombs under them in heavily populated areas. For one thing it would make rebuilding on the site just slightly problematic, radioactivity! Another everybody would know if 2 nuclear bombs had been detonated due to seismology.

You did not read the article.
Of course everything collapsed from the impact zone.
The top pushed down on the crushed zone of about 80 meters and then went through the pulverized zone like through a sand castle. No resistance.
Underground nuclear demolition is safe for the population. That's how it is done.

For months after that there was molten steel and fires underground. Tremendous amount of energy was originally used for fires to still go on.

And the buildings were rebuilt like 10 years later? One cannot rebuild on ground zero of a nuclear demolition for some time. Of course, the delay was explained by all types of stories ...

 

[Goonie]

You did not read the article.
Of course everything collapsed from the impact zone.
The top pushed down on the crushed zone of about 80 meters and then went through the pulverized zone like through a sand castle. No resistance.
Underground nuclear demolition is safe for the population. That's how it is done.

For months after that there was molten steel and fires underground. Tremendous amount of energy was originally used for fires to still go on.

And the buildings were rebuilt like 10 years later? One cannot rebuild on ground zero of a nuclear demolition for some time. Of course, the delay was explained by all types of stories ...

Evidence! This is just one more wacky theory amongst many. As I have said I have read the article, but all it describes is a theoretical. The idea that any government would plant nuclear bombs under their most heavily populated city's is absurd.

 

[Edial]

Evidence! This is just one more wacky theory amongst many. As I have said I have read the article, but all it describes is a theoretical. The idea that any government would plant nuclear bombs under their most heavily populated city's is absurd.

What is wacky is when someone sees a building fall down by crushing everything down, steel, elevators, stairwells, huge beams into fine dust ... and there is NO resistance and says it is normal because everyone is telling me it is normal.
Nuclear demolition is safe, since radiation is contained to underground.
Nuclear detonation is often used when making underground natural gas containers, chambers.

 

[Goonie]

What is wacky is when someone sees a building fall down by crushing everything down, steel, elevators, stairwells, huge beams into fine dust ... and there is NO resistance and says it is normal because everyone is telling me it is normal.
Nuclear demolition is safe, since radiation is contained to underground.
Nuclear detonation is often used when making underground natural gas containers, chambers.

This is an argument from incredulity. Anyway enough, since with no evidence to say that such a device was under the towers, or that there was radiation present anywhere at ground zero, or seismology results that indicate the explosion of two nuclear devices I rest my case and move on.

 

[Edial]

This is an argument from incredulity. Anyway enough, since with no evidence to say that such a device was under the towers, or that there was radiation present anywhere at ground zero, or seismology results that indicate the explosion of two nuclear devices I rest my case and move on.

But we saw plenty of people in hazmat suits walking around and checking things ... and firemen were looking at them "Why are you in hazmat"?]
Nuclear detonation is not loud, just a ground shaking - and ground shook 10 sec before the collapse (10 sec is the time it takes for all the processes to complete).

This theory explains everything.

Were there additional explosions? Of course. People heard them, everyone heard them, TV people were talking about explosions - it is a fact.
Termite was also found.
So, that was in addition to the nuclear demolition, to help the process.
There are always backup plans and several layers of processes working at once.

Nuclear demolition answers every objection I had.

 

[Goonie]

But we saw plenty of people in hazmat suits walking around and checking things ... and firemen were looking at them "Why are you in hazmat"?]
Nuclear detonation is not loud, just a ground shaking - and ground shook 10 sec before the collapse (10 sec is the time it takes for all the processes to complete).

This theory explains everything.

Were there additional explosions? Of course. People heard them, everyone heard them, TV people were talking about explosions - it is a fact.
Termite was also found.
So, that was in addition to the nuclear demolition, to help the process.
There are always backup plans and several layers of processes working at once.

Nuclear demolition answers every objection I had.

Interesting article on the subject
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-01-...debunking-dimitri-khalezovs-ridiculous-claims

This sounds suspiciously like your theory, and what the Wikipedia page is describing.

 

[Btodd]

You did not read the article.
Of course everything collapsed from the impact zone.
The top pushed down on the crushed zone of about 80 meters and then went through the pulverized zone like through a sand castle. No resistance.
Underground nuclear demolition is safe for the population. That's how it is done.

For months after that there was molten steel and fires underground. Tremendous amount of energy was originally used for fires to still go on.

And the buildings were rebuilt like 10 years later? One cannot rebuild on ground zero of a nuclear demolition for some time. Of course, the delay was explained by all types of stories ...

There was resistance, the Twin Towers did not collapse at free-fall speeds, no matter how many times Truthers repeat that falsehood. If you look at a picture of the collapses, there is debris falling well below the point of collapse at any given time, so if you want to cling to the notion that the buildings were at free-fall...it would mean the debris below the point of collapse is falling FASTER THAN FREE-FALL. The calculations were done, and the Twin Towers did not collapse at free-fall speed. The floors below are getting crushed by the mass above...watch the videos. If there were no resistance below, then the whole thing would have collapsed at once, like a controlled demolition. But it didn't. It went from top-down, starting at the impact points of the planes, and the lower floors remain intact until the collapse reaches them and crushes them. The 2nd tower to be hit was the first to collapse. You know why? Because the impact point was substantially lower. This means there was more mass pressing down on the impact point, and thus...it failed sooner, and collapsed sooner. Physics.

As for 'molten steel', there was molten metal in the rubble for weeks afterward, but it was never tested to indicate it was molten steel. Some people used that phrase to describe it, others used molten metal. It was most likely molten aluminum, which melts at a lower temperature, and made up the cladding of both WTC buildings (the planes were also mostly aluminum). That's a LOT of aluminum.

The fact that there was molten metal for weeks afterward in the rubble says nothing about what caused it to melt in the first place. That's a result of trapped heat and enough oxygen to keep it going, and nothing to do with the initial source of fire. Even if you invoke thermite (ludicrous), it burns very, very quickly. It's by far the least likely explanation.

The nuclear thing is beyond absurd. No point in even refuting it.


Btodd

 

[Edial]

There was resistance, the Twin Towers did not collapse at free-fall speeds, no matter how many times Truthers repeat that falsehood.

What do you mean a "Truther"? Since when a word Truth becomes a form of a Lie?
Should I then call you a Liar if you are not a Truther?
Please stop calling names and let's have a discussion instead.

If you look at a picture of the collapses, there is debris falling well below the point of collapse at any given time, so if you want to cling to the notion that the buildings were at free-fall...it would mean the debris below the point of collapse is falling FASTER THAN FREE-FALL. The calculations were done, and the Twin Towers did not collapse at free-fall speed. The floors below are getting crushed by the mass above...watch the videos. If there were no resistance below, then the whole thing would have collapsed at once, like a controlled demolition. But it didn't. It went from top-down, starting at the impact points of the planes, and the lower floors remain intact until the collapse reaches them and crushes them. The 2nd tower to be hit was the first to collapse. You know why? Because the impact point was substantially lower. This means there was more mass pressing down on the impact point, and thus...it failed sooner, and collapsed sooner. Physics.

Enough years passed to digest all the videos by now.
Free fall speed (in vacuum) for 1362 ft is 9.2 sec.
According to 9/11 Congressional testimony, WTC fell in 10 sec. Some say a bit longer. But 911 Testimony said 10 seconds.
.8 seconds difference from free fall speed. You call this "resistance" to justify each of the floors pancaking individually at free fall?
This cannot be called "Physics".

Next, you said some item were racing down ahead of the building at least some of the distance.
All this means is that these items were either forced down by pressure or explosion because no item may fall faster than free fall without any external momentum forcing it to the ground.

Also you were saying that buiding was collapsing from the top down.
Of course, because that was a nuclear demolition.
A solid top of the building was pushing down the 80 meters of the debris zone and the rest of the 325 meters of the building were turned into a "sand castle".
The top heavy part was going through it like hot knife through a butter.
Practically no resistance. Evaporated. That's what the nuclear demolition does.

As for 'molten steel', there was molten metal in the rubble for weeks afterward, but it was never tested to indicate it was molten steel. Some people used that phrase to describe it, others used molten metal. It was most likely molten aluminum, which melts at a lower temperature, and made up the cladding of both WTC buildings (the planes were also mostly aluminum). That's a LOT of aluminum.

The fact that there was molten metal for weeks afterward in the rubble says nothing about what caused it to melt in the first place. That's a result of trapped heat and enough oxygen to keep it going, and nothing to do with the initial source of fire. Even if you invoke thermite (ludicrous), it burns very, very quickly. It's by far the least likely explanation.

The nuclear thing is beyond absurd. No point in even refuting it.


Btodd

Well, it was certainly molten something that was under ground. Even months after it was piping red hot and molten. No water could extinguish it either.
This means a heck of a lot of energy keeping it molten even months after 911.
This definitely explains the nuclear demolition.

As for the reason the nuclear demolition is never refuted because it is not possible to do so.

Everything fits.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Ironhold]

If there was a nuke, then where was the electromagnetic pulse?

 

[James Is Back]

If there was a nuke, then where was the electromagnetic pulse?

Or radiation/fallout.

 

[Ironhold]

Really, a lot of conspiracy theories - like this one - fall apart when people stop and ask question.

In this case, the conspiracy hinges on people somehow managing to hide a pair of nuclear detonations that supposedly took place in the middle of one of the most populous cities on the planet.

 

[Btodd]

What do you mean a "Truther"? Since when a word Truth becomes a form of a Lie?
Should I then call you a Liar if you are not a Truther?
Please stop calling names and let's have a discussion instead.

It's not name-calling, that's what people who think 9/11 was an inside job started calling themselves over a decade ago. And the claim that the Twin Towers fell at free-fall speed only comes from them...I was merely pointing that out, because it isn't true.

Next, you said some item were racing down ahead of the building at least some of the distance.
All this means is that these items were either forced down by pressure or explosion because no item may fall faster than free fall without any external momentum forcing it to the ground.

What this means is that those items were falling at free fall speed, and the buildings were collapsing slower than free-fall. What in the world do you mean by 'downward pressure'? That doesn't make any sense. What forced them to fall faster than gravity would allow?

Also you were saying that buiding was collapsing from the top down.
Of course, because that was a nuclear demolition.

Please provide examples of nuclear demolitions, how they work, and why that results in the collapse of a building from the top-down, where the lower floors get crushed by the mass above them.

A solid top of the building was pushing down the 80 meters of the debris zone and the rest of the 325 meters of the building were turned into a "sand castle".
The top heavy part was going through it like hot knife through a butter.
Practically no resistance. Evaporated. That's what the nuclear demolition does.

I don't know where you're getting 'evaporated' from. There was tons and tons of debris, and I'm waiting on you to show what 'nuclear demolitions' do, and how you know such.

Well, it was certainly molten something that was under ground. Even months after it was piping red hot and molten. No water could extinguish it either.
This means a heck of a lot of energy keeping it molten even months after 911.
This definitely explains the nuclear demolition.

As for the reason the nuclear demolition is never refuted because it is not possible to do so.

Everything fits.

It makes no sense at all. The best explanation, which requires the least amount of assumptions (Occam's Razor), is molten aluminum. The heat from jet fuel and ensuing office fires are more than enough to cause it, and that heat was trapped and fed by enough oxygen in the ensuing weeks. No need to propose nuclear devices, debris falling faster than gravity will allow, or any of that nonsense.


Btodd

 

[Goonie]

It's not name-calling, that's what people who think 9/11 was an inside job started calling themselves over a decade ago. And the claim that the Twin Towers fell at free-fall speed only comes from them...I was merely pointing that out, because it isn't true.





What this means is that those items were falling at free fall speed, and the buildings were collapsing slower than free-fall. What in the world do you mean by 'downward pressure'? That doesn't make any sense. What forced them to fall faster than gravity would allow?



Please provide examples of nuclear demolitions, how they work, and why that results in the collapse of a building from the top-down, where the lower floors get crushed by the mass above them.



I don't know where you're getting 'evaporated' from. There was tons and tons of debris, and I'm waiting on you to show what 'nuclear demolitions' do, and how you know such.




It makes no sense at all. The best explanation, which requires the least amount of assumptions (Occam's Razor), is molten aluminum. The heat from jet fuel and ensuing office fires are more than enough to cause it, and that heat was trapped and fed by enough oxygen in the ensuing weeks. No need to propose nuclear devices, debris falling faster than gravity will allow, or any of that nonsense.


Btodd

The nuclear detonation thing is this
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use....E2.80.9D_and_.E2.80.9Ccrashed.E2.80.9D_zones

I just think its wacky.

 

[10TROUBLE13]

Look up Thermite, it was found in the dust and debris etc.. The government doesnt mind us getting caught up in how and who of 911. The mission was to take our freedoms without a fight and actually fool the people into supporting it. Immediately after 911 the Patriot Act was signed. In turn we watched 60% of our rights vanish.