Psy-Opera: Proof of Nuclear Demolition?

I also noticed that you did not provide any calculations in regards to the amount of energy you think it takes to "disintegrate" a S T E E L floor deck.

Do you have any idea how much energy it takes or are you just guessing that it takes a nuclear weapon to provide such energy?

 

why is absurd?

 

I love the way these guys hang their own glitter on everything to bait people. Argue for the sake of argument.

 

Webster's 1828 opinion of the word weapon:

 

Btw:

I just had to repeat this.

Because it's hilarious.

 

that only shows ignorance, since the root meaning is not changed, but have a good laugh.

Never know who is laughing at you.

and for the umteenth time I did not quote websters you did.

 

What I don't see on those trusses is heat and fire suppression material.

 

Personally, I think the idea that a nuclear fission reaction was involved in the collapse of the twin towers is completely ridiculous. To my knowledge the US only has thermonuclear weapons in its arsenal with a primary charge of at least 10kt. Here is a video of the Nagasaki bomb that had a yield of ~20Kt. 39,000 people died out right and Nagasaki was not nearly as densely populated as manhattan. I just don't understand how people think its possible that a fission reaction was involved in the towers collapse. Am I missing something?

 

The dictionary image you keep posting in the "PULL IT" thread is a clipping of Webster's and you most certainly did quote it.

At first I thought it was the 1828 first edition, but upon further review it contains a Lord Tennyson quote that wasn't made until the 1830's so I'm going to have to say that I think it's most likely one of the the 1841-1864 editions. It's not in the final printing of the 1841 edition (1844) transcribed here: http://edl.byu.edu/webster But it's really close. This one contains both the Howell and the Roscommon quotes present in your image and nearly exact wording for the definition. I suppose it's possible the Tennyson quote could have been put in in a later edition, or removed from a previous edition so it's still possible the 1841 could have contained the quote.

One thing's for sure, it's certainly before the 1913 revised unabridged edition because by then the definitions you posted had completely changed and all the quotes were removed.

 

Nope, you're not missing anything. The people insisting it was a "nuclear" explosion are missing a lot of things. Like, for example, high-school physics.

 

Comprehending high school physics exemplifies the fact that buildings don't fall the way the WTC's did without "assistance"....all the way down.

 

So where are all the Physicists protesting the NIST report?

 

Seek and ye shall find.

 

Sought, found naught.

Any evidence forthcoming about Nuclear Demolition?

 

Nothing you'd admit to.

 

Evidence is evidence. If you have any, post it, link it, reference a source.

Or keep dodging; your choice.

 

Ok..Thanks for your input.

 

And thank you for your typical lack of input.

Once again, a 'truther' fails to source his claim.

 

Once again...dance, dance, dance. 93. Buried. Practice what you preach.

 

You should stop all the dancing and simply source your claim.

 

You know, this thread isn't about me, right?

 

Exactly. So stop whining and cite your source.

 

Well there's you second most popular phrase. Next up "it's all about me", followed by a call to the rest of the team, then the mod. Give us something else...we're bored. You've got 5 or so years worth of material from several forums...show us something else.

 

How about you just, you know - support your claim.

Never once in the years that you've been working on this board have you done so.

 

Less than a year bud. You however, go back at least 5.