Psy-Opera: Proof of Nuclear Demolition?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Steve2650, Oct 8, 2011.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Steve2650

    Steve2650 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera is not like any other 9/11 documentary I've seen.

    http://psy-opera.com

    I just finished watching chapter 4 "Phenomena". There's some astonishing evidence I never knew about - like the radioactive tritium, the huge hole in bedrock, and other rare chemicals found in the dust. Just looking at the similarity between the world trade center and a nuclear bomb explosion blew me away. After seeing this, I'm pretty sure there were nuclear reactions at ground zero. Ground Zero - I guess they named it right!

    nuclear demolition
     
  2. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I always chuckle a bit to myself when someone claims to have made up their mind about something after "new information" they acquired by watching a video.

    When they claim to be open minded, that gets an outright laugh.

    I haven't watched the video, nor do I know what it says about tritium as evidence for a nuclear explosion at ground zero, but I'll bet you a nickle they fail to mention that tritium is now the preferred replacement for radium in every day self illuminated items like watches, exit signs, compasses, key chains, etc. It is hardly a "rare" chemical these days.

    There's no similarity at all. The smallest nuclear explosion ever to have taken place would have wiped out most of lower Manhattan, not just a couple of acres at ground zero. The blast would have thrown debris upward, and out from the epicenter, not down into a relatively small area. People 200 meters from the center all would have been dead from radiation exposure. People 400 meters from the center would be severely ill. Electronic devices in the area all would cease to function due to the emp. That means no reporters reporting, no cameras taking photos, no helicopters circling the area, no functioning first responder radios.

    Since we know none of that happened, we know there was no nuclear blast at ground zero.
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're better off not seeing it.....nothing but the old no plane/vaporized steel/cgi bullhockey
     
  4. Steve2650

    Steve2650 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WTC definitely looks similar to a nuclear explosion, the film does this overlay split screen effect where you see half of one and half the other. The shapes are just remarkably similar.

    I guess the tritium was supposedly in the exit signs of the airplanes. Psy-Opera claims that tritium is lighter than air, like hydrogen gas, and would go up.

    And I had never seen that huge hole in bedrock under where the tower stood.

    There are a number of other points too, graphs and whatnot from the dust samples. I do think they have some nerve charging money for an internet movie! But it's $1.99, pay-per-view.
     
  5. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0

    tritium also occurs naturally,and there was no bedrock directly under the towers,they had to dig down to the bedrock, and form a concrete 'bathtub' to keep the water from seeping into the foundation
     
  6. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0

    tritium also occurs naturally,and there was no bedrock directly under the towers,they had to dig down to the bedrock, and form a concrete 'bathtub' to keep the water from seeping into the foundation
     
  7. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0

    tritium also occurs naturally,and there was no bedrock directly under the towers,they had to dig down to the bedrock, and form a concrete 'bathtub' to keep the water from seeping into the foundation
     
  8. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Stuff like this is why I chuckle.

    You didn't do any independent investigation of their claims at all, did you? I'm not gonna pay a nickle to fund the dissemination of this outlandish propaganda. But I will tell you how to verify their claims on your own.

    I assume this side by side comparison is a comparison of the debris clouds, and not the rubble pile?

    Think about this for a second. Did they show real time video of the two events, or were they still frames? Why would that be?

    Which nuclear blast did they compare to? What was it's magnitude? How much destruction did it cause? Was the destruction similar? How large was the pattern? Did they show both at the same scale? How was the pattern formed? These are questions you should be answering for yourself.
     
  9. Steve2650

    Steve2650 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's lots of video of the destruction events in the film. In another part, the similarity is shown between the exploding point sources, and rocket exhaust. You see material expanding in all directions, and that can only be because of a release of high pressure, according to psy-opera.

    I know one thing for sure, there is plenty of stuff in here that hasn't been in any 9/11 truth movie before. I've seen a lot of them. I'd be happy to listen to an objective review of the claims made, but I don't believe I do justice to the film by posting on a forum. You had to be there, as they say.
     
  10. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So? It's quite easy to make false associations when you are unfamiliar with the subject. The human brain simplifies information by relative association. When someone is unfamiliar with something, they try to relate it to something they are familiar with so that they can process the new thing. When something doesn't make sense to us, we try to relate it to things that do make sense in order to bring clarity to the situation. This is one of the primary causes of confirmation bias. No one is immune.

    In fact, propaganda merchants take good advantage of this and try to present you with images and concepts that you are familiar with to sway your opinion. This is why people are always comparing political opponents to Hitler, the economy to the great depression, American liberals to communists, etc...

    Why don't you objectively review the claims made? Start with this:

    Is this statement true? Is that the only way to generate the pattern? If so, are there other ways that high air pressure could have been generated in the collapse?
     
  11. Steve2650

    Steve2650 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    After a diligent study, I conclude that the Psy-Opera film is correct. The towers disintegrated into point sources that released tremendous amounts of pressure. Other than extraordinary explosions, no other explanation has been offered. Given this plus all the other hard evidence presented, such as strontium-barium correlation, the huge hole in bedrock, the melted cars, the mushroom cloud, the rare cancers, the radioactivity, the molecular dissociation - objectively I'd have to say the twin towers were blown up by nuclear reactions.

    I highly recommend this internet film. As I said, it is unlike any other I have ever seen.

    http://psy-opera.com
     
  12. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Something tells me you reached that conclusion before you ever posted here. You stubbornly ignore some key facts.
     
  13. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    did you say "fact"? I love "facts" lets hear those "key" "facts" you refer to.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Really? of course you cannot supply ANY evidence to that effect much less prove it.
    yah happens all the time doesnt it.
    Yeh I noticed that too.

    Btw do tell us how the equivalent of 10Kt is enough to blow up manhattan when it would take well over 150 just for 1 tower?

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    I so feel your pain! Nah not really.
     
  15. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How did you come up with 150 kilotons needed for each tower?

    And it's well documented about the effects of a nuclear explosions,we've done it over 1000 times,but just in case,this website lists the effects projected for a 10 kiloton gun type nuclear weapon. http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hsc-scen-1.htm
     
  16. SiliconMagician

    SiliconMagician Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,921
    Likes Received:
    446
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LMAO

    Nuclear detonation?

    It's quite easy to find out. Nukes leave behind radiation. Simply go out and and get yourself a geiger counter(they are real cheap) and then go around Ground zero.. if it clicks like crazy off the charts.. you'll have your proof. Even the planes that dropped the A-bombs still have residual radiation on them from carrying the bombs. A geiger counter goes nuts inside one of those aircraft.
     
  17. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Oh I was not aware there is only one kind of nuke in the world LOL

    Besides if you cna get 10 ton of dynamite to do that kind of damage I assure you that every demo company on the planet will want to hire you.


    Oh BTW, why do they call it "GROUND ZERO"? LMAO

    reminds of going to a funeral


    ashes to ashes, columns to toothpicks, steel to dust.......................

    [​IMG]
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113

    they poured 1/2 the atlantic on it trying to put out the thermate LOL
     
  19. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    did you get to bthe fact that the destruction would be TOTAL FROM A HALF MILE TO A MILE FROM GROUND ZERO?
     
  20. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    there was no thermite to put out...
     
  21. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    specify what kind of nuclear bomb you mean then
     
  22. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which weighs more, 10 tons of dynamite, or 10 tons of feathers?

    (And by the way, we're talking kilotons of dynamite, not tons)
     
  24. Steve2650

    Steve2650 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There's nothing about kilotons of dynamite in Psy-Opera, at least not in the chapters I have seen.
     
  25. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was for the benefit of someone who doesn't understand that the yield of a nuclear explosion is measured in units that are a ratio of TNT yield / mass.

    In fact, I quoted the comment directly in the post I asked my question.

    A 10 Kiloton nuclear explosion is equivalent in yield to an explosion of 10 kilotons of TNT.

    ie. someone who thinks that 10 kilotons of tnt can't "do that kind of damage" doesn't know what he's talking about.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page