103 votes

The Smoking Gun. WTC7 taken down by CONTROLLED demolition. WTC1 and WTC2 as well. What are we to make of this?

Controlled demolition.

In case you have not seen the new documentary, where now thousands of structural engineers, architects, chemical engineers, and physicists are going on record that IT IS NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE that those three buildings could have been brought down by office fires, or by even high-impact 767 crashes in regards to WTC1 and WTC2. (You can watch that documentary when you have time here:)

http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138/

All...I repeat all...of the three buildings brought down that day...comprising the worst structural "failures" in world history...were done by CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

Incontrovertible. Irrefutable.

And extremely high-tech, high energy military grade explosives which are able to melt steel in a flash, were used.

This is now, without question.

We have solved the what. Now we turn to the how...and then the WHO.

But the government's official accounts, the FEMA and the NIST reports, are so ridden with fraud, gross negligence, and pseudoscience, that those reports...are CRIME SCENES in and of themselves.

We need to start prosecuting right there and then work our way up...but I digress...

3000 innocent citizens and first responders have died! Who will speak for them?? Who will bring them justice??

And hundreds of thousands of family members and friends to the victims who carry the pain with them to this day...deserve a right to know what happened... rather than being insulted by these incompetent, taxpayer-funded government-sponsored cover-ups to the scene of the worst mass murder in American history.

WTC7 was demolished differently than the Twin Towers: All or most of its basement supports were severed at once....as evidenced by the free fall, or fall at the speed of gravity with no resistance, of the first 108 feet.

In other words, 108 feet, you know, 8 to 10 stories of the building of the lower floors, just ceased to exist in an instant.

Where did they go? Did those floors slip into a parallel universe?

Or were they blown to smithereens?

Certainly the truth...wherever it may lie...is not the, fake, forced, fraudulent model reconstruction that NIST (MIST?) tried to shove down the throats of the American taxpayer, $22 Million Dollars later!

As to the destruction of the WTC1 and WTC2 towers...two of the STRONGEST vertical structures on Earth...the entire buildings were laden with nano-thermite, with complete destruction set to begin just below the airplane impact zones, and timed to look like a "normal" gravitational collapse.

It was a brilliant execution.

[Except there is no such thing as a "normal gravitational collapse." Asymmetrical damage (the jet impacts)...can not lead to a symmetrical global collapse. Physically impossible.]

You heard the first collective shaped charge "ka-POW" of the south tower floors being blown apart just below the jet impact area, then the explosions of the other successive floors were timed and were increasingly masked by the continuous roar of the massive demolition wave which gained velocity and amplitude as it plummeted to Earth.

Very clever.

But, eyes don't deceive...and ears don't....thanks to the advent of cameras and cell phone cameras.

Complete gravitational collapse on super-highrises from office fires no matter how hot?

Doesn't happen.

Has never happened in the nearly 100 years of high-rise history.

Will never happen in the future, as long as the Laws of Physics apply....which they will forever.

Unless thermite is involved.

Which may explain the molten iron in a sheer 'waterfall' of molten metal off of the south tower as its upper 30 floor block begins to deform and rotate down, but a block no more, its angular momentum of all that incredible mass, suddenly neutralizing into dust...as the "collapse" accelerates in earnest, traveling down the former path of MOST resistance (the core) that in seconds has become--by being blown to bits--the NEW path of LEAST resistance.

Hmmm. 30 stories pulverized into powder in two seconds. Very strange.

The path of MOST resistance...becoming the path of LEAST resistance. Very strange.

Molten iron. Very strange.

What possibly could turn most of the mass of 350 vertical feet of an acre-sized building, into wisps, in a few seconds? Or melt its steel columns in the same??

Must be something...of course NOT mentioned in the taxpayer funded NIST and FEMA and 9/11 Commission Reports.

Here is the smoking gun to how the controlled demolition was set up...innocuously...with unrecognizable boxes of military-grade super-thermite sol-gel shaped charges, placed in the core areas hidden from the office tenants, against the bare columns in and around the elevator banks.

Super-thermite melts steel with incredible temperature and exrtreme levels of energy.. and pulverizes the concrete and the non-steel contents in mid-air, as Towers 1 and 2 come down.

Literally all of the floor concrete, gypsum wallboard, and FF&E, including elevators and HVAC equipment... for 110 stories of each building, an enormous weight, was pulverized to a toxic powder as fine as talcum, in mid air in seconds...and it spread out like a volcanic pyroclastic flow, over lower Manhattan...while the melted and distorted steel frames, collapse in a heap below.

Watch another the 18 minute presentation here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M&feature=g-user-u



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
fireant's picture

I've never made the claim that fire caused it.

I just want all the known facts on the table. To ignore the fact of heavy damage from Tower1 is misleading.
How much damage? We don't have direct photos of it, but your videos provide clues.
First is video 4. Start at :50 and it is clear 7 took some heavy metal hits. Now go to 1:06 and freeze it. That's some serious gouging of the sw corner, and you cannot see below about floor 15. Considering the trajectory, it's reasonable to assume the depth of damage was deeper into the building on lower floors. And that's just the corner. We still have no photos of those lower 10-15 floors of the south side, but a firehouse reported:
"Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post."
Your third video confirms my overall point. It ignores the south side of bldg 7, it also tries to make a comparison with buildings which sustained no damage other than fire.
Regarding your first video, it actually seems to confirm that fire can indeed cause collapse of a steel frame building.

Undo what Wilson did

I think you miss the point

It doesn't matter how much damage there was to one side of the building or how big the fires were. There is absolutely no way that the building would have collapsed as it did unless there was a controlled demolition. If one side had enough damage and the fire in the rest of the building was hot enough to weaken the structure then the building would have fell OVER at best, not straight down. It is literally impossible that it would fall as it did with every column just disintegrating straight down at the same time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk&feature=related

Perhaps you can explain the simultaneous vertical "explosions" at 1:20 of the video above.

fireant's picture

No. You are missing the point.

It is disingenuous and misleading for the proponents of controlled demolition to ignore south side damage. I've made no argument regarding how the building fell.
Consider, anothernobody, the utter gravity of controlled demolition claims. This is serious stuff. If they were controlled demolitions and you are going to try and educate others, your arguments had better be pristine.

Undo what Wilson did

Ok. You seem to think

that since I and others have come to the conclusion that the buildings were demoed that we have not weighed the evidence. And what I am telling you is I have. Also I have no grandiose expectations that the general public will accept the truth, simply because it is to hard for John Q. Public to comprehend and accept as it will destroy their idea of reality.

To me this is just like when I watched our government murder the Branch Davidians and the average American was cheering them on in their ignorance. The only difference is that then during the siege I was calling my congressman Gene Green and talking to him personally and our illustrious Governor Ann Richards office to express my concerns at what they were allowing the federal government to do to Texas citizens and the intrusion on the State sovereignty. Yet nothing was done then just as nothing is going to be done about the murders on 9/11. But that does not mean that I will just shut up about it. The fact that most didn't believe the absolute truth of what was going on in front of their eyes then didn't stop me from announcing it and I see no reason to censor myself now.

You talk about making a pristine argument but I tell you that just looking at the buildings fall is as pristine as it gets. And by stating that my argument must be pristine you are inferring that the governments story is pristine. Do you believe the official story? Is it pristine? Watch those buildings come down and ask yourself: Did those planes do the damage you saw? You don't have to explain it, just acknowledge it. There is no way the buildings came down solely from the impact and fire from those planes. If you recognize that then you must accept the horrible truth of that reality.

fireant's picture

If true,

then there should be no fear of putting all the facts on the table, no? The way I look at things, honor itself dictates that I do. When facts are ignored or obfuscated, "truth" comes into question.
Do I believe the official story? Of course not. And I've been all over the board, just like most everyone, over what did happen. I quit speculating and decided to just look at facts, and found the pro controlled demolition "experts" avoided the south face issue, and I find that disturbing, so decided to look closer. I'm only reporting here on DP what I found. Make of it what you will.

Undo what Wilson did

Fair enough

Your point is well taken.

I have considered the evidence of damage to the south face and it along with the fire and wind do not account for the vertical free fall drop of the building. And after seeing the apparent simultaneous explosive discharges from the sides of the building accompanied by the vertical free fall I am forced to extrapolate that there was some sort of deliberate demolition involved.

Furthermore, if there was a deliberate demolition guised as resulting from damage caused by the planes hitting the twin towers then I am forced to conclude that there was foreknowledge that the "attack" was going to take place.

The who's and how's are secondary as I do not have to provide an explanation of how this was accomplished but only to show that the official story is false and that the evidence points to controlled demolition. And this I believe is evident from all video footage.

We agree the official story is false so perhaps instead of arguing about how or why exactly the buildings came down perhaps we should be investigating why was the official story falsified and who had the most to gain?

fireant's picture

Even though I don't buy the official story,

I remain unconvinced of what did occur. For many reasons; not just 7.
Here's one: If thermate cutters were used, we'd see evidence of that cutting in the debris (other than chemical evidence). I've scoured videos looking for bevel cuts or just cuts. There have been a ton of FOIA video released in the last year and a half, and all I can find are square butt ends of support beams (for the towers). No bevel cuts (except for that one which has been around for awhile which seems obvious a fire dept take-down cut). A lack of bevel cuts, or any cuts for that matter, in the debris fields is problematic for thermate cutter charges.
So, without bevel cuts, how did butt end connections come apart at near free fall speed? The connections must have been compromised in some way, which gives credence to the corrosion rumors and The Bridgeways Project. To me, that's where investigation should begin, for it provides motive if true that the owners knew their buildings were doomed. Start with the owners. They are the ones who pocketed 7.5b.

Undo what Wilson did

You need to watch out for disinformation

Here is a pic of the angle cut beam I believe you are talking about.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_charges.html

To me it looks just like a standard cut with a cutting torch. The slag only supports that view. Why people insist it was something else I don't know. I'm no expert on thermite so I can't say what kind of footprint to expect from its use. But just like mini nukes or missiles instead of planes I think these arguments are made in order to muddy the water and distract from finding the truth. By making an argument that can be easily debunked it detracts from the obvious truth in front of our eyes which is that there is no way the planes and resulting debris and fire caused the buildings to collapse as they did.

fireant's picture

All I am saying is if the buildings were cut apart with

thermate as so many people claim, there would be abundant evidence in the debris, and I have been able to find none.
I agree that one bevel cut was done post collapse.

Undo what Wilson did

I'm going to sound very ignorant here

Were there people inside of WTC7 when it collapsed? I'm sure there were, or else it wouldn't be a big deal, but I just want to be sure.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

The official story is that nobody was inside

WTC 7 when it collapsed. See for example this interview with Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

http://www.firehouse.com/article/10567885/deputy-chief-peter...

By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

And this interview with Daniel Nigro, Chief of NYFD:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_G...

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more people.

So before WTC 7 collapsed, the fire chief had ordered everyone out of the immediate area of WTC 7, and that's why nobody was inside.

I'm not sure why you say it "wouldn't be a big deal" though. It's still a big deal even if nobody was inside.

wtc7

no it was evacuated , and bbc reported it had fallen 30 minutes or so before it actually did , you could see it in the background of the live feed, then they realized it and disrupted the feed. venture on piers morgan live cnn interview brought this fact up. HE OWNED THAT FUCKER PIERS!

"He's this eccentric Ghandi-Like figure that you cant touch with the normal bribes that people respond to."
the man Doug Wead on DR. RON PAUL

LOL

Oh good, it's magical physics defying super thermite, here to save the day! This must be even better than the nano-thermite from before.

Just say it, you know you want to:

"Because the Government used magic."

EDIT:

My favorite line:
"And extremely high-tech, high energy military grade explosives which are able to melt steel in a flash, were used.

This is now, without question."

Quick! Make sure no one questions the magic thermite! It is without question! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Eric Hoffer

I'm getting sick of this "no office fire could melt steel" crap

I'm getting sick of this "no office fire could melt steel" crap myself.

A couple of years ago I threw a la-z-boy into a fire pit, and never experienced a more severe blast of heat than when those artificial materials were consumed by the flames. All that was left was a glowing, wilted steel framework.

I'd just like to hear for once a decent explanation of what MIGHT happen if the burning building begins to collapse, and the air trapped inside is force-fed into the flames at high speed.

Blast furnace effect, perhaps? Steel vaporized in a 5,000 degree blast?

That, and George W's stupid expression, makes me question 9/11 conspiracy.

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

Mr. Hoffer

enlighten us you F'in genious!!

come on, I know you have more than just smart a$$ comments dont you?
. . . . . .

You are aware that this theory of super thermite is MUCH more plausible than the government and NIST's theory right??
you do know what the government's theory is dont you???
You ready?????

MAGICAL Jet fuel
YES!!! magical jet fuel by golly!! and and and ummm magical office supplies and YES!! also . . . magical desks burning.
Jet fuel that in the only time since the creation of the earth melted massive pieces of high grade steel into molten rivers flowing under the buildings. OR . . . do you NOT believe the first responders accounts of that either?

does your brain allow you to extrapolate the required thickness of those girders and I-beams that were used in those buildings??
remember now, those I-beams didnt collapse when 100 tons hit them at 300 mph 3/4 of the way to the top.
You think they were a little bit thick??? ROFLMAO!!

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson

Of course not!

They were obviously brought down by magical thermite with properties that break the laws of physics and gets around that horrible problem of low vs high explosives and just does both!

"And extremely high-tech, high energy military grade explosives which are able to melt steel in a flash, were used."

Oops. They were high explosives capable of disintigrating metal, not low explosives, and yet there was no kaboom? Allow me to bring a guest commentator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8rYotiiFP8

I am thankful that any molten material on site was analyzed immediately by a team to find that the materials of the "molten" steel was actually steel. Thankfully, all first responders are materials scientists on the side.

So this IS in fact a different thermite than the "nano" thermite that was claimed before right? Or are we sure it's not the "4 nuclear bombs" that I saw in another comment in this thread?

For something that is "Now, without question." there certainly are a lot of theories floating around on this thread.

Eric Hoffer

Superthermite

can act as an incendiary or an explosive depending on particle size, composition and whether or not it is contained. Superthermite is nanothermite. There's a good deal of information online about it.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403624/military-reloads...

https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

Ouch

How's that "or" treating you? Are you claiming an incendiary OR was an explosive used? Energy release is pretty simple. You have an amount of potential energy. The finer your particulate matter, the faster your reaction will be. Get it down to a real tiny amount, and the reaction occurs so quickly that it blows instead of burns.

So it has to be one or the other, or you can say, "all different types of thermite were used which have any potential abilities I want to ascribe to them" in which case you're just going to the "magic thermite" defense. So which case would you prefer?

Eric Hoffer

I'm not claiming anything.

You seemed confused about nanothermite vs superthermite. They're the same thing and nanothermite can be made to explode. Get it? :)

Sigh.

Actually, I just erased all of this, if you're just trying to help define super thermite vs nano thermite to explain they're the same thing, not a problem.

EDIT: LOL really? This post got downvoted? Me saying I deleted a piece I'd written because I realized it may not apply to what the guy was saying?

Getting emotional much? :END EDIT

Eric Hoffer

no kaboom??

no there wasnt ONE kaboom and there wouldnt be.

10's of people(fireman included), still captured in video, reference explosion after explosion after explosion from all the buildings. Of course since they're not world renowned acoustic experts with the government, you wont believe them either. Not to mention barry jennings. oh thats right he died a few days before the NIST report was released on building 7, just another coincidence.

What substance other than metal runs yellow or orange in a river?
You think it came from a volcano under the towers??
Or was the molten material melted desks or wall board?

Good job getting hung up on the adjectives and more extreme statements in the OP's original post so you could purposefully miss his point.

Notice also . . . as for something offered from you as the reasoning for the towers disentegration. nothing . . . .

I dont get hung up on words. It boils down to this
something cut inch+ thick steel across 20-40 floors worth
something melted enough material to flow a yellow river
jet fuel and building materials cant!!
thermite found at ground zero
oh shoot I almost forgot . .
even though that jet fuel explosion/fire was hot enough to melt steel, mohammod(sp) atta's photo floated through that fire and landed on the ground and unbelievably was found!!

Let me ask you this.
Do you still think the anthrax sent to JUST democrats and liberals after 9/11 came from al-queda?

Jackson County Georgia

War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.
Thomas Jefferson

...

Yes, which weren't timed to rhythm, were consistent with electrical transformers blowing, and which aren't uncommon to hear in huge fires. Pressures go up with heat, things in confined spaces go boom. This isn't at all proof of your case. You've heard controlled demolitions right? You can HEAR the explosions, from far away. This is not the case in the WTC, where the "explosions" reported are much smaller, much softer, and in no way shape or form with controlled demolition.

What substance other than metal runs yellow or orange in a river?

Uhh... almost anything that's been heated to a sufficient temperature to glow? Aluminum for instance? As to the "river" comments, I'd LOVE to see some pictures of some sort of river flowing around the city of NY, because I missed that.

Good job getting hung up on the adjectives and more extreme statements in the OP's original post so you could purposefully miss his point.

Ah yes, the good old, "if it sounds stupid, then that doesn't count, even if it's held up as proof, it should just be ignored" defense. That one's a classic. Why are the extreme statements being made again if they're not true?

Notice also . . . as for something offered from you as the reasoning for the towers disentegration. nothing . . . .

The towers didn't disintegrate. There's no reason for something that never actually happened. http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM does an excellent job of busting this argument. He even goes in to mention that dust is combustible, a fact missed by a lot of people (including me) in the course of these arguments.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/9-11Pix/WTCFlag.jpg

You see that picture? See the background? Does that look like disintegrated to you? So no, I won't be arguing about what "caused" disintegration, because it didn't happen. "Does your Dad know you love opera?" is not a valid question if you don't love opera.

I dont get hung up on words. It boils down to this
something cut inch+ thick steel across 20-40 floors worth

You also don't get hung up on physics, explosives, or magic. "I don't understand it, therefore it must be some magical technology that sounds crazy cool and I don't understand!"

something melted enough material to flow a yellow river

I'd love dimensions on this "yellow" river as well as the material composition. Photos?

thermite found at ground zero

No, there were bits of aluminum and rust found. If you're telling me that a building made of aluminum and steel, you're impressed by finding aluminum and rust, I've got some moon real estate to sell you at half off.

even though that jet fuel explosion/fire was hot enough to melt steel, mohammod(sp) atta's photo floated through that fire and landed on the ground and unbelievably was found!!

The only people claiming steel "melted" are people pitching up straw man arguments. Steel weakens to uselessness well before that point. And yes, it could have happened. I'll admit it's HIGHLY improbable and may have been faked in order to provide further justification going after Al Qaida afterwards. However, it doesn't matter in our conversation. We're not arguing whether or not our government was behind the attacks, either through incompetence, a payoff, or from Ron Paul's theory of blowback. We're arguing whether the planes were enough or if it had to be super magical thermite.

Do you still think the anthrax sent to JUST democrats and liberals after 9/11 came from al-queda?

I'm not sure. May have been done to increase anxiety to further help pass the Patriot Act. I'm not arguing that the government used every inch given them using 9/11 as an excuse, and I certainly wouldn't put the anthrax by us past them. What I'm arguing is that it could not conceivably be controlled demolition the brought the twin towers down.

You seem to be trying to mix up the arguments and use things that don't apply to prove your points. Stop bringing up crap that doesn't matter in context of the argument. I don't care if Bin Laden took his coffee with the same type of cream as Bush. All I care about are the physics of the situation and what is actually likely. When we get done with all the stupid arguments for imaginary causes of the destruction of September 11th, we can focus on the ACTUAL causes of events like 9/11. Namely, our out of control government bureaucracy, blowback from our foreign adventurism, and the likelihood of our government to keep funding and pursuing such overseas adventures in order to create events like 9/11 so they can further expand our empire.

Eric Hoffer

Dr Judy Wood: "Where did the Towers Go?"

Congratulations to anyone who has begun the process of unshackling their mind from the lies of 911, perpetrated upon the American people and the world. You will experience, however, associative denial from the cognitive dissonance by which your family and friends unknowingly suffer. Be patient with them. Your exuberance from having been loosed must be tempered as you help them to understand. It ain't easy.

Most importantly, keep your mind well seated in critical thought. Have healthy skepticism about the information you are processing. Most legitimate 911 truth movements have uncovered incredibly valuable pieces of this puzzle. However, disinformation by cointelpro has been well conceived by those responsible for this crime against humanity, and they are expert non pareil at infiltration. Satan is a deceiver. Don't forget that for a moment. Disseminate with the patience of Job.

What exactly am I getting at? Just that, my eyes opened about 10-11 months ago when I heard an odd thing on the Rush Limbaugh show. I had been a devotee of Rush since the early 90's. Rush was RIGHT!, after all. He was an intelligent political analyst with a killer sense of humor who got me through the Clinton years with some hope intact for my beloved country. But on that day, a caller wanted to discuss Ron Paul. Rush went on a diatribe unlike any that I had ever heard from him. That is, an ad hominem attack against a man who was way off my neocon radar screen. That man was Ron Paul. Then I heard more ad hominems against Ron Paul that day by the rest of the neocon all-star team: Levin, Hannity and Beck, and I thought, "Who is this Ron Paul Guy? He always seemed to me that he should be on a park bench feeding pidgeons". So I went to youtube.

That moment changed my life. It lead to a personal journey that included a personal investment of several hundred hours of research into 911. The bulk of that time I have been a strong proponent of theories, and that is what they are, of the AE911truth crowd. That is, until I noticed that they were doing collectively to a kindly woman what I had heard Rush and the boys do to Dr. Paul: scripted ad hominem attacks over her research of the physical evidence phographed and filmed of the destruction of the WTC and its affects in the vicinity of lower Manhatten. Her's was an entirely new approach which, on its surface, seems too incredible to give serious consideration. But I reminded myself that I initially thought the same 10 months ago of the 911 truth movement, and Dr. Paul. Well trained neocon was I.

I will end this here with just one statement. That is, you will be hearing the 911 truth movement begin to make all attempts to discredit Dr. Wood's 8 year research. I encourage you to not dismiss that research out of hand. What we are after is the truth. Do not ally too quickly with those who employ the ad hominem, for it is a dead, and deadly, giveaway that they feel threatened about the strength of their own premise.

Btw, I haven't listened to neo-conservative talk radio since. I do enjoy libertarian Mike Church, though.

Dr. Judy Wood "Where Did The Towers Go?" www.wheredidthetowersgo.com

Hey Sharkhearted, here's an

Hey Sharkhearted, here's an interesting article that might help with your disintegration theories.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/06/09/911-a-decade-later-a...

and

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=68

LOL

Really? 4 nukes were used? With no EMP pulse and no sound?

That one takes the cake.

"The official accepted belief on the towers is that the two were destroyed by 4 small nuclear devices, two in the basement, two on upper floors, that produced over a million degrees of heat that dissolved the building, put out minor radiation for a short distance and kept fires burning for months. It vaporized enough steel to build 3 huge aircraft carriers and huge beams hundreds of yards away show more damage than anything in Hiroshima. This is the official opinion of DARPA and the US Army. This is highly classified but I am printing it anyway."

I'm really hoping this whole document is an elaborate trolling. Do you guys even read the stuff you post?

Eric Hoffer

Did you bother to read the

Did you bother to read the articles? What is your theory on how a firetruck could have corrosion of its steel and front wheels completely vaporized, yet the back of the truck was untouched. There are plenty of recorded explosions. Why is it so hard for you to believe. Maybe your suffering from Cognitive Dissonance, the inability to pull one's head out of their ass. Personally I find Veterans Today to be one of the most informative websites around.

LOL

Yes, I read the articles. Then I spent a minute laughing my ass off. I had a drink of coffee, assured myself that no thinking individual would take such a ludicrous write up seriously, and came back. Then I reread it, came here, read your comment and felt bad for you.

This is what happens when people take a conclusion and then accept any evidence they can possibly find for and disregard any possible against. "She turned me into a Newt!"

Please go look up the definition of cognitive dissonance for me. For all of us, honestly. You might find an example of it, like, I don't know, believing that nuclear explosions occur without the sound of explosions or the resulting external force from a high explosive. And a complete lack of an EMP.

Lets take a look at your article. First, lets look at all the sources cited... oops. Nope... guess there were no sources cited. Just Gordon Duff's opinion. Guess that's gold! Oh well, lets pretend he had sources and treat the article unlike a piece of toilet paper.

The official accepted belief on the towers is that the two were destroyed by 4 small nuclear devices, two in the basement, two on upper floors, that produced over a million degrees of heat that dissolved the building, put out minor radiation for a short distance and kept fires burning for months. It vaporized enough steel to build 3 huge aircraft carriers and huge beams hundreds of yards away show more damage than anything in Hiroshima. This is the official opinion of DARPA and the US Army. This is highly classified but I am printing it anyway.

So, nukes, minus EMPs, minus explosions, minus explosive external force, plus disintegration that "shows more damage than anything in Hiroshima." Of everything else here, I'd like to argue this the most. PLEASE feel free to argue this with me, as it's the most important piece of "fact" here. A "million degrees" of heat.

Even more fun, "vaporized enough steel to build 3 huge aircraft carriers." Lets look at that statement REAL closely, as it's the most bogus statement in there. The WTC only had 200,000 tons of steel to begin with, and an aircraft carrier is a bit above the 100,000 tons marker. Second, the steel wasn't vaporized.

No official secret finding has been reached on the Pentagon attack other than that wreckage from a Columbia crash in 1995 was dumped on the lawn and the site was altered during the day to simulate an air crash. I have not been given access to anything beyond this and choose not to make something up.

This earns an LOL, as there are photos of directly after the crash with the wreckage. There are no photos of dumpster divers throwing aircraft trash around.

An outrageously false cover story about a “toxic stew” involving “dry wall” was part of the “official record.” By that standard, every firefighter, drywaller or person who has lived in a building with drywall is actually dead but not yet informed.

This was one of my favorites, as it totally ignores the difference between ingestion, inhalation, and observation of a solid. I'm in the safety business, whether you understand it or not, dust is one of the most underestimated dangerous things out there.

If it is not clear it should be. Ron Paul won the Republican nomination for president.

No he didn't. I wish he had, but he didn't. He didn't because not enough people heard and understood the message, most likely because many of the messengers chose to talk about nukes in the trade towers as opposed to blowback from meddling in foreign countries.

These are the hard facts and accepted theories by the real experts, without any of the speculation of activists or “conspiracy theory” folks.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... sorry, lost it for a second there.

But please, tell me more about the nukes. This is awesome entertainment while I write invoices.

Eric Hoffer

I do believe in the nuke

I do believe in the nuke theory. I suppose you believe the NIST report that states the supposed failure of one structural column (out of 64) brought down the building 7 in 8 seconds, or that 10% of the towers could somehow bring down the remaining 90% in 12 seconds. Why won't NIST release the 3300 documents they classified? I'll tell why because it's all BS. I don't pretend to know all the facts of who or how. However without controlled demolition the collapse of these buildings defies the laws of physics.

LOL

Well yes, magic nukes that no one noticed is a much better conclusion.

Lets start with the easy questions:

Why did no one hear a nuclear bomb going off?
Why was there no EMP disabling non-shielded electronic equipment?
Why was no nuclear explosion picked up on seismic equipment?
Why was there no flash from the nuclear explosion?
Why was there no shock wave?

That's for starters.

Eric Hoffer

There are plenty of

There are plenty of recordings of bombs going off. Here's the sesmic data for 9/11:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html

The previous question I laid to you regarding the damaged fire truck. What could cause that kind of damage? Answer SHOCK WAVE.