It looks like folks who post here are somewhat like-minded. I believe you have found the perfect Forum to share your thoughts. How do posters on Forums know what they know? They have learned primarily from the mainstream media who get their information from government sources and businessmen (both on and off the record), and by doing independent research (the result of which is: to find sources they agree with and can understand; and become comfortable with the level of understanding offered by these sources). This can cause gaps of knowledge that over time become imprinted on a person's brain, and this knowledge is then referred to as fact when discussing alternate versions of topics which they have learned about from sources they have chosen. This imprinting is reversible if the initially-dismissed knowledge is revisited and studied. This requires intellectual curiosity, and both the ability and willingness to change firmly-imprinted thoughts. Minus a few words, the original post on this thread stated: The real 9-11 report is supported by both of the teams that wrote it at the U.S. Department of Energy and the IAEA. This report was supported by the chief scientists of the United States Government Department of Energy and the chief scientists working at the International Atomic Energy Agency. The original post also stated: Nuclear physicists are irritated at the orchestrated cover-up of how the buildings were brought down. I consider the nuclear physicists working for these two agencies credible sources; and if they are irritated, maybe the story which they and we were originally told how this operation happened is not the way it happened, and they know how it was done. ~~~~ He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is simple. Teach him. He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep. Waken him. He who knows, and knows what he knows is wise. Follow him. ~~~~ The obscure we see eventually. The completely apparent takes longer.
Please post a link to a DOE source suggesting that 9-11 was nuclear so that I may consider this a serious thread.
Actually, all the OP has is pure conspiracy theory fodder. Out of context claims and changes, as well as trying to support the claims of the OP that it was a nuclear explosion. Meanwhile, the reports quoted predate 9-11 by over 6 years, and have not a damned thing to do with it. In addition, the OP also ties in the Fukushima as being tied in according to this 1995 document. Sorry, complete and utter failure. Now if you can produce a document from the IAEA and DoE that specifically talks about 9-11 and a nuclear explosion, then you might actually have something. But all you have here is pure crap. Of course, coming from VT I am not surprised.
Jim Fetzer is the editor of Veteran's Today and the guy is a fully-fledged, card-carrying nutcase. http://americanloons.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/668-james-fetzer.html And no, it is not 'shooting the messenger', he is a nutcase.
Yep, that is what I accused genericbob of being. LOL. You throw enough of these crazy theories out there, from particle beam weapons to nukes, to hologram aircraft, and it makes anyone who questions this event look crazy, because of the real crazies interjecting. And the news is, it has worked, and it has worked very well. If you trust your gov't, you will of course not believe this was a false flag operation, that utilized a known and planned attack by muslims. But if you do not trust your gov't, a false flag then becomes possible, and even plausible. Especially since the New American Century boys were in the white house, and much of that plan was to invade the middle east. All that was needed was a reason that could be used, with some more lies thrown in. Well, we got the lies, in regards to Iraq. And of course I do not trust my gov't. Who would trust a gov't that allowed our nation to be hollowed out by deindustrializing America so that a few could max out their profits with slave labor overseas? Changing what made us so powerful to begin with? And what created the largest middle class in world history?
Mushroom and Gamolon misrepresented the Editors and Authors of Veterans Today, and besmirched their integrity. Why does this go unchecked? The posting of a pictorial misrepresentation by Mushroom about the lifestyles of truthers was inappropriate. Mushroom: I could not care less how long you have worn the uniform. And as for all the ribbons and medals and patches on it... they would give you a ribbon if you went to the head at the same time every day in the military. With the exception of One Mind's posit that Allah did it (which is more believable than the official story) and Durandal's comment, Falling down. It's even more apparent in video., no one else has answered the question that began this thread: Does this look like a building is falling down or exploding? With the exception of Ronstar, no one has offered an answer to what happened to the steel in the towers. Ronstar said, the buildings didn't turn to dust, the concrete floors did. hundreds of thousands of tons of steel was recovered from GZ. Some 185,101 tons of structural steel was hauled away from Ground Zero. (under extremely high security) Each tower had 100,000 tons of steel in it. In addition, each tower had 390,000 tons of concrete in it. So the total mass of each tower including elevators, plumbing, utilities, windows, office equipment and furnishings, and so on was approximately 600,000 tons. There were two towers, so the total mass of both towers was 1,200,000 tons. So approximately 1,000,000 tons of material turned to dust. Mushroom: What made 1,000,000 tons of material turned to dust? It has been calculated that the jet fuel in the airplanes at the times of impact could only raise the temperature of a single floor of one tower by 495 degrees Fahrenheit. The pictures we have seen show the airplane hitting the first tower between the 92nd and 98th floor. This total 495 degrees of heat would have been distributed throughout 7 floors. The second tower was hit between the 78th and 84th floor. (again 7 floors) So a distribution of all available heat from the jet fuel carried by each airplane to weaken the steel structures averaged 70 degrees Fahrenheit per floor. This is not enough heat to weaken steel. Yet as the cleanup was being completed, there was a smooth hole formed in the granite where one of the towers stood. Granite has a melting point between 1,260 degrees and 2,300 degrees Fahrenheit. What caused enough heat to melt this hole in the granite? It is impossible for it to have been caused by burning jet fuel. Lastly, a question I asked earlier in this thread: What is the opposite of a truther?
Since when does 9/11 truth need any help to 'look silly'? A nutter called Prager first posited the stupid nuke idea (I won't dignify it with the term 'hypothesis') and he is definitely a card-carrying truther. You use global research as a source and then you expect to be taken seriously? What next? Jones and Ventura? - - - Updated - - - I attacked Fetzer's lack of integrity as well and it goes unchecked because it is true. Fetzer is an idiot, therefore how can it be misrepresentation? http://americanloons.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/668-james-fetzer.html It's a geological feature which is evidence for glacial activity in NY. Nothing 'melted' the granite and it is just a natural feature (courtesy of Oozlefinch) on another site. Look it up and don't listen to what idiot sites tell you without fact-checking. Logical?
That might be nice, if VT had any integrity or reputation to be besmirched. Want to know their reputation? Well, here is an idea. It is not just me that calls them crackpots and cooks. http://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/www.veteranstoday.com Their review on Sitejabber (an independent site which tracks website reviews) is a whopping 44%. Or how about this little gem? http://www.dailyslave.com/gordon-duff-and-veterans-today-is-an-admitted-source-of-disinformation/ Wait, is that right? did he really admit a lot of what he posts is not real? Yep, he sure did!
Not to mention that the "hole" was found under WTC4, which was not destroyed by the attacks! This is WTC 4, the "hole" is located in what was the sub-basement of this building. Now can some tuther explain how a nuclear bomb over 100 floors above this location and several hundred yards away would create a hole in the basement of this building while leaving it intact, I would love to know. This is the problem with conspiracy theorists. They take disjointed information with no context or out of context and then try to force it to fit their beliefs. Although, I would love to know how a small nuke would create such a hole even if it was under the WTC 1 or 2 buildings. If it was powerful enough to cause damage like that over 1,300 feet straight down, through a hundred floors of building and basements, then it was powerful enough to level most of that area of New York and leave enough fallout that our grandchildren would be detecting it. John here is a noob, he fails to understand that most of us have been going over this in here for years. There is not a claim he will be able to bring up that has not been blasted apart by many of us in here. I am just waiting for him to come to RADAR injects.
To: Blues63 You said, "You use global research as a source and then you expect to be taken seriously?" I did not use Global Research as a source. Scott referred to Global Research in Comment 24. One Mind quoted Scott at Comment 30. Do not attribute Scott's words to me. You said, "It's a geological feature which is evidence for glacial activity in NY. Nothing 'melted' the granite and it is just a natural feature..." Seriously? Logic and truth are inseparable so they cannot be opposites.
Then kindly explain to us how a nuke in WTC 1 or 2 would cause a hole below the sub-basement of WTC 4. Come on, let's hear the logical explanation of how a nuke would cause that. Oh, and as an FYI, Blues knows of me from another site, which also has a rabid CT section. I am the "Oozlefinch" he is referring to. I did quite a bit of research into this several months back. But such "holes" are common throughout that region of New England. I encourage you to look up "Glacial Pothole". It is actually a common occurrence, and New York (being nothing but a large Glacial Moraine itself" is full of them.
I find it funny when people make these claims, because as we all know the WTC was never "turned to dust". I know it is hard to tell from the pictures, but the debris was stacked 50-60 feet high. And a great deal of it was pushed down into the basements (WTC 1 and 2 had 7 basement levels). The vast majority of any building is actually nothing but empty space.
Mushroom said: "...we all know the WTC was never turned to dust." The building began turning to dust in the first few seconds of the explosion. What do you call this? and this? and this? and this? and this? and this? and this? This is dust. This dust is what comprised the 1,000,000 tons of the unaccounted for building material and office furnishings. If you need video proof, watch this. The dust blocked out the sun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8mz09VQQ2M If you cannot unlearn the lies you have been told and learn the truth, you are incapable of understanding. You need to work on this. If you have anything intelligent to say, say it. If all you are going to do is troll this thread, just put a cork in it. Stop sitting back and sniping my thread; sniping is the job for cowards. It is beneath the dignity of an independent thinker.
Falling down. I suppose you have x-ray vision to see through the dust cloud to make this claim? That sir, is a blatant lie. The entire collapse for each tower, from initiation to completion, was much longer that that. Can you explain why we see remnants of the core with the floors stripped away? What caused this? Incorrect yet again. The beams in the core were not all "rectangular steel beams". Some switched over to smaller I-beams towards the top of the buildings. Can't you get anything correct? The building was not surrounded by "structural steel girders". The core, with it's 47 columns, was surrounded by 4" concrete thick floors laid upon trusses. The outer perimeter was made up of box columns, which towards the top, were made of 1/4" steel plate. It was those perimeter columns that were covered with the aluminum. Below is a photo of the floor trusses that were connected to the perimeter columns (shown) and the core columns. Get your facts straight. Do you know what was attached to the core columns and surrounded the core? Gypsum wallboard/planks. Have you worked with wallboard before? Do you know how much dust is created when you break/cut wallboard? Which types of beams dare you referring to? Perimeter columns or core columns? Do you have a photo that we can reference? Funny how you left out that the cancer was caused by radiation crap. Are you ever going to address my post (#9) regarding where that "radiation" claim first turned up? What evidence do you have that the dust was composed of "dustified" steel? Or are you just guessing? - - - Updated - - - I don't see any refutation on your part to anything I've said in this thread? Why not? You completely ignored my post #9.
Find me a building, similar in design to either WTC1, or WTC2, that was struck by a jet, suffered resultant, unfought fires, and remained standing? Find me a building, similar in design to WTC7, that was struck by falling debris from another skyscraper, suffered unfought fires, and remained standing. Do you even KNOW what the design of each building mentioned above entailed? Or is design not factor in determining how a building will react to fires and damage?
Can you show me quotes from the actual scientists with their names? I have yet to see this information provided by you or anyone else.
Really? You want me to present to you what the dust was "comprised" of? Are do you have your own study showing that the dust was comprised of "office furnishings". Maybe you're just guessing?
Mushroom said: The nukes in WTC 1 and 2 did not cause the hole below the sub-basement of WTC 4. Towers 1 and 2 were not the only buildings nuked on 9-11. The people who conspired to perpetrate this crime had multiple motives. The political motivation was to start endless wars in the Middle East. This has been accomplished. A second motivation was the owner of the WTC complex knew it would cost around $1 billion to remove the asbestos from the buildings, and this work would not be necessary if the buildings were destroyed as they were. Why did the new owner of the complex sign a 99 year lease with the Port Authority knowing he would need to invest an additional $1 billion to remove the asbestos? He knew he would not need to make this renovation. Why did the owner of the lease to the complex (who took possession of the complex on July 24, 2001 prior to the demolition) specifically add a clause in the insurance contract that specifically referenced protection against "terrorist attacks"? This indicates foreknowledge. The insurance policy allowed a maximum of $3.55 billion coverage per event. In court the owner of the complex argued that because there were two separate buildings struck by two different airplanes, this constituted two separate events. The insurance company and the owner agreed to a settlement in 2007 (following a drawn out legal battle) to a total payout of $4.55 billion. The financial motivation for the demolition was for the owner of the buildings to collect an insurance payoff. He did. Another financial motivation was that the towers were not producing desired revenue due to a low occupancy rate, and a new complex might produce more lucrative results. The people who caused this event were not technological idiots. They knew exactly what they wanted to accomplish, and to a degree, they succeeded. They needed to calculate how much energy it would take to bring down the buildings without destroying all of Lower Manhattan. Apparently the nukes in buildings other than the towers were selected to not completely destroy them, but just damaged them sufficiently to require them to be demolished after the event. This happened. So the answer to your question is: There were multiple nukes placed throughout the complex, and they were specifically selected to accomplish a specific result in each of the buildings. The complex looked like this before the event The complex looked like this after the explosion. Those circular holes in the tops of the buildings that were adjacent to the towers were not caused by falling debris. Those holes were caused by nukes. These are pictures of cars that were near the WTC after the explosion. What caused the amount of heat to burn tires and paint off of these cars? It was not jet fuel or falling debris? Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or behaviors. This produces a feeling of discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance. Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and beliefs in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance). Think about it. What is the opposite of a "truther"?
It wasn't fire? Do a search on Google for "car fire damage". Look at the images and see what you come up with. Then come back here with a straight face and tell us all the fire cannot do what you see in the above photos.
Maybe you should read this John T... http://www.waltersforensic.com/articles/fire_investigation/vol3-no1.htm Or this... http://www.k-chem.net/vehicle fires.pdf
You still keep avoiding the question. How did a nuke in any building cause a hole under WTC 4? A building which was still standing (although heavily damaged) afterwards and had to be demolished? Come on, this "hole" was found below the basement, in a building that was still standing. Explain this and stop throwing around more crap already. This is what I find most annoying about tuthers. They will spin-spin-spin, but never actually answer a direct question. They just spin off in 4 other directions weaving in more conspiracies. So what, now we have 3 or 4 buildings nuked? Really?
