For proponents of the nuclear theory, those who oppose it and any interested reader: Nuclear Demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11 – An Empirical Review Where Fantastical Stories Collide with Observations Written by Wayne Coste As another anniversary of 9/11 approaches, a number of fantastical stories about the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers have reappeared across social media. In addition to the fantastical story about there being no planes Impacting the Twin Towers (ref1, ref2 and ref3), another fantastical story that frequently appears involves the use of nuclear detonations to destroy the Twin Towers. The purported evidence for this is the high rate of cancer deaths among first responders and the presence of specific atomic elements that are asserted to be “markers” for a highly radioactive event (e.g. atomic elements that are asserted to be nuclear-detonation related). However, none of the fantastical scenarios that have been put forward for nuclear detonations have any supporting evidence. For those who would like detailed analysis, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has posted a comprehensive response in their answer to Frequently Asked Question #13, FAQ #13: Various authors claim that nuclear blasts caused or contributed to the WTC destruction. Why does AE911Truth not endorse this claim? An expanded version of FAQ #13 contains all the references, examples, and explanations in a single 29 page document. Please read the rest ... https://www.911tap.org/557-news-rel...orld-trade-center-on-9-11-an-empirical-review
A hypothesis that supports the nuclear theory: Breathtaking: Solving Nuclear 9/11, the Pommer Report By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor Submitted by Heinz Pommer with Jeff Prager to Veterans Today Introduction by Gordon Duff with Ian Greenhalgh and Jeff Smith (Nuclear weapons designer/particle physicist) The material here is overwhelming, hours of lectures and dozens of detailed slides. This is not an easy read. It is another piece of irrevocable proof regarding 9/11 and the use of nuclear weapons and, on its own, worth much more than just scanning or flipping through. * Architects and engineers say planes don’t knock down skyscrapers. Nuclear physicists say only atomic bombs can turn out this kind of heat and damage. The real investigators who were silenced by a grand jury and a wealth of threats said it was a conspiracy and named lots of names, some expected, some not. Now an independent physicist has proven the work done by the original investigators who were silenced and much new work as well. His modeling and detail is breathtaking. We were recently introduced to the work of Germany physicist Heinz Pommer. I chose to contact him. His work deeply parallels work done by the US Department of Energy and IAEA which was censored and suppressed so that the fake 9/11 report could be published and blame put on Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike Pommer’s work (aided by Jeff Prager), the VT team included some of those involved in the ill fated original investigation. Working from different data, to an extent, both teams have ended up with nearly identical results. https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/09/25/the-secret-history-of-9-11/ VT knows the who, how and when from official sources. Pommer (and Prager), however, have taken their portion a step further and have produced what the original team would have presented to congress and the president, had they been allowed, of the proofs of nuclear weapons and their effects. Their work is identical to the secret work by the DOE and Sandia National Labs but adds much as well. Included are video presentations sent by Pommer to me and his PDF slides. This material has been submitted to the US team and we will get their comments. Read the rest ... https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/08/29/breathtaking-solving-nuclear-9-11-the-pommer-report/
I think 9/11 was at the very least, known about and allowed to happen, and possibly promoted to happen either by a deliberate shutdown of investigation or possibly even destructive devices placed in the buildings to ensure a desired result. By why on earth would nukes be used, when conventional explosives/incendiaries be just as effective and far more logistically convenient?
That's a good question, but it can't be ruled out without a thorough independent investigation. I'm not ruling out any type of explosive/incendiary, conventional or unconventional. But that's just me.
You are open-minded, which is an unusual circumstance. I think Gage and Bollyn need to review this material from Pommer, and I hope they are as open-minded as you.
I'm a career computer guy and in programming, steps taken in the proper sequence are essential to a computer software program. This is computer logic 101, everything else is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). The science of 9/11 is not any different. There are steps that need to be taken in their proper order. We can't put the cart before the horse otherwise the entire issue gets confused. All these studies on the nuclear theories, for and against need to be set aside for now. What's paramount is to first fully establish and agree within the scientific community that the official hypothesis is null and void via scientifically incontrovertible proof. Then the only valid hypothesis left is a controlled demolition for which there is an enormous amount of circumstantial and physical evidence that supports it. Once that hypothesis is accepted by the scientific community and cannot be successfully challenged, the next step is to investigate how that was accomplished (nuclear may be introduced at this point, along with all other incendiaries), followed by the next step, who the possible suspects are that were involved. 18 years later, we're still at step 1, so let's not jump to step 3 without first making sure step 1 is conclusive. Lies take a few seconds, the truth can take years to sort out.
Some of us are independent thinkers, avoiding the madding crowd, as it were. Some of us do not need a weatherman to tell us which way the wind is blowing, or has blown, in this case. I'm not trying to argue, but as much as I fully support Lawyer's Committee, the cynical part of me knew the system would ignore their most excellent petition, ONLY because I completely understand that the legal system is fully compromised. So too will the system reject or ignore the nuclear theory. Early on the speakers of truth like Van Romero or even Marion Cotillard were coerced into backing out of their public claims. The nuclear theory is the only one that reconciles all the observed facts, and I know the government and media will never accept that. Most americans cannot handle the truth.
In many cases they don't even know the truth because they rarely ever see it in the MSM. Check out this video: And where did you read in the MSM about the Special Grand Jury petition and the Lawyers' Committee lawsuit vs the FBI/DOJ?
