9/11 World Trade Center Totally fake! But you still believe it!

Well Id say a guy who posts WTCs are all 'fake' then gives us a link to the actual plane crashing into the WTCs isnt intent on debate ,just getiing a rise.

The truth movement is little more than bowel movement at this stage.

Each year goes by,the various 'theories' (using incredibily loosely) must be tweaked and finessed to refit the new mold struck by further evidence proving their "truth" nothing but ficticious nonsense.

What you get here are attention whores. Folks ,like this ,with nothing to add....just knows he'll get responses from regurgutating long refuffed trash in the hopes we'll play along...and I will. Even tho its pleasurable to watch such people swim in ignorance,they are well past the point of being embarrassed by their insanity. The small support they got in the mid 2000s sustains them, they think that their crazy stories are mainstream now....they couldnt be more wrong tho.

The benefit of course of arguing these stubbornly dishonest people is the information one delves into to prove thier fables wrong. I know more about 911 than I ever wanted to know 10 years ago. Those who say we dont know everything are of course right....we never will...these are politicians and lifelong govt employees...there are no better people at protecting themselves...this of course not equate to not knowing most of what happened which clearly points the heart of the 'official story'.

 

well since the only people you deem qualified to speak to the matter are nuclear scientists then its only proper that you apply those same rules to yourself.

If proving you are a nuclear scientist is proving a negative then suffice to say you are not, there fore not qualified to speak to the matter by your own standards.

 

i wasn't aware one had to have credentials as a nuclear scientist to dispel the wacky notion that the towers were brought down with nukes.

 

really?

All I seen was graphics that could be done in anyones home.

Yeh the movement has accomplished its goals to show the world the treasonous fraud that has been perpetrated on them by the MOBocracy.

The MOB fell to their own deceitful lies.

 

double standards hmm.

 

At this point, I think it's some of that, combined with the fact that, the longer they waste their lives in this false belief, the more difficult and embarrassing it will be for them when they finally are forced to admit they're completely wrong.

Yeah. When I first discovered these theories I was scared (*)(*)(*)(*)less. It was about 2004. But, after reading through them, and listening to what they were saying, and examining things, I realized they were not even close to being plausible.

The key is that every one of their theories adds massive, unneeded, superfluous levels of complexity to the events of that day. The more they pile on, the less "efficient" and skilled this supposed conspiracy must be, and thereby the less likely they would have accomplished this and gotten away with it.

I mean, the scientific evidence is just icing on the cake - 9/11 denier theories don't even stand up to a simple logical analysis.

 

If that was the only video of the crash you'd be in business....but thats hardly the case.

Its the simple things you ignore that makes you look so silly.

 

So thousands of videos from thousands of different people were all faked?

How many people are involved in this conspiracy now? Tens of thousands? And not one is talking? Ten years and not one person has even claimed they were involved?

Of course, your ridiculous assertion is laughable on its face due to the tens of thousands of people who were in NYC and witnessed the attacks live, as they happened. What were those people seeing?

 

Only if in fact YOU had the credentials to back up your claim of nukes used at the WTC.

Of course just about anyone has enough 'cred' to dispel the laughable notion of nukes bringing down the towers.

 

Indeed. It is the simple things that make you look silly. The minimum size of a nuclear explosion is governed by the critical mass of the fissile material. Once the fissile material is > 1 critical mass an unregulated chain reaction cannot be stopped. This "simple" rule of nuclear physics rules out the possibility that you have any idea what you are talking about on the subject of "micro" nuclear weapons.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html

 

wow we could make a movie out of all that drama, nope nothing to see.

well unless you like the same ole empty official song and dance.

 

I do not recall mentioning a fission explosion. hit the books.

 

When you talk about a 'nuke',exactly WHAT are you talking about?


Can you give a straight answer?

 

Indeed. Checked mirror lately?

And do you know why your cause has not managed to find an 'Erin Brokovich'?

Hint, it's not because your views are being suppressed...

 

I did not look into that, why?

 

what is commonly known in the industry as a "nuclear reaction"

 

Well, there's only two types of nuclear reactions, and you said you weren't talking about fission.

On the other hand, Iron doesn't participate in fusion reactions because it's too heavy.

Let me guess, you're talking about a truther kind of nuclear reaction?

 

This is why you are so funny to read. You talk in circles, and do it so fast and hard that your always seem to have your... never mind that.

OK, now for a little basic information. A "Nuclear Reaction" is nothing special. This is simply when the particles of one element split those of another element. This may be the particles in Uranium, or even elements much less likely to have an uncontrolled reaction, like Lithium and Deuterium.

There is a reason why deuteruim is often used in nuclear research is that it is an unusual isotope. It is a hydrogen atom, which instead of having the standard 1 proton-1 electron arangement, has 1 proton- 1 neutron- 1 electron. Because the hydrogen can loose the neutron with no ill effects, this is a perfect element to test with.

And the first "nuclear reaction" observed involved not uranium, oxygen and nitrogen. And there was no "boom" involved. There are a lot of similar combinations that have been experimented with over the last century. However, only the heavy metals like Uranium and Plutonium have the density and highly unstable elemental mixes that make explosions possible. All other nuclear reactions process fairly slowly, and without any real noticeable effect.

So please explain this all to us. You are not talking about a fission explosion. By definition then you can't be talking about a fusion explosion either. But you are talking about an explosive nuclear reaction.

And nuclear reactions always involve fission or fusion of some sort. That is by their definition.

So please tell us, what exactly are you talking about?

 

I'll take this opportunity to repeat something that was in another thread... I offered Koko or any other 9/11 Denier $100 if they could go 5 posts in a row of directly answering any question posed to them.

So far, none of them have even made it one.

 

getting warmer!

No boom?

everyone knows there was a boom, if there was no boom prove it.

 

you mean official story denial.

 

Thats ok we understand, we knew you cant

 

racist bas *****

 

I wonder if koko is actually thinking they hauled nuclear reactors up the towers and allowed them to go critical?