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

"Coming a long way" does not allow someone to violate the laws of physics.

Cascading nuclear reactions (which is what nuclear weapons are, regardless of size) disrupt electromagnetic fields, period. It's not something that there's some technology solution for. It's an inviolate law of physics.

 

I saw the smoke coming from the towers from where I was! Was that some giant smoke machine brought in by the government with the entire population of NYC in on it? Do you realize how (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dumb you sound. Many of my friends lost loved ones (people I knew as well). When I never saw those people again, what happened to them? Are they hiding out in another country somewhere?

Enough with this nonsense. Your posts are extremely insulting to those who lost loved ones on that day.

Don't forget the NYS police,NYPD, FBI and the entire population of NYC were also in on it.

 

what do you know about energy, bombs, nukes etc?

For those who understand the amount of energy required to create dust out of everything then you ask yourself what can do these things.

 

Koko, you're nuts. Report me.

 

well everyone here fancies themselves as top notch investigators, and to come out here and claim someone is nuts that means you obviously know everything there is to know about well everything that can cause all the effects seen at the wtc.

Of course when you know so much you then need to explain how columns can vaporize in mid air as seen in many of the demolition pictures.

America wants answers and since you have them by all means explain it to everyone.

That is how metal and concrete and everything in a building can turn to dust.

No I am just old fashioned you know, I point to the most obvious straight forward way it can be done.

 

Your rant has convinced me. Now I totally accept that 911 was faked. My eyes have been opened.

Thank you SO much for your completely logical and wonderfully unbiased thread. Now I know the truth!

 

yes it pretty much sticks to the facts rather than a bunch of flunky hyperbole.

 

the use of nukes does not violate any laws of physics that I know of.

There are some very creative ways to use nukes.

Then that depends on what people know as the "laws" of physics.

Got a whole bunch of really uneducated people that think the speed of light is the speed limit. LMAO

but then what do you expect from public school education

 

get a job in the construction field or an engineering degree and you will realize how stupid you sound...

 

Attacking the poster does not make a case for you.

So can nukes be used in controlled demolition?

 

Well, I can guarantee a lot more then you.

My first duty station was actually guarding nuclear warheads. And for almost 30 years now I have been keeping up with developments in both nuclear weapons, and in how to shoot down such weapons.

The video I showed you? Well, if you want to see the Davy Crockett, one of them is sitting at the US Army Infantry Museum, at Fort Benning, Georgia. I saw it there about 5 years ago.

And my avatar? That was taken just about 4 years ago, at the White Sands Missile Range. It is in their museum, and is a mock-up of the Fat Man bomb. And I am not posting much, because I have been at that range for the last month, and will be out there for the rest of this month as well.

I have also done actual research. I know the difference between a Nuclear Warhead, and an Atomic Warhead (something you obviously do not). I also know the 2 basic ways of achieving such a detonation (can you name them?).

All you do is vomit out nonsense. I am going to suggest to you that you do what I do before I post. Do some research. And I mean real factual research, not just going to a conspiracy website and repeat what they say.

If you think I am wrong, then give us the following answers. What is the smallest nuclear warhead ever detonated? What is the smallest atomic warhead ever detonated? What were the radiation and fallout patterns of each of these, and what kind of burst were they?

Because if you answer those questions, you will be ruining your own claims.

 

I've got an idea for kokomojojo.. Instead of a really really small nuclear bomb, maybe it was just like a really really big conventional bomb.

 

Look for yourself. Don't wait for someone else to do the looking for you. Oh...and thank you guys for that "official" piece of fiction that took half a decade to produce. Very enlightening, unedited and complete.

 

No

Nukes by their nature aren't 'controlled'

 

nice theatrics

mp's do not detonate nukes LMAO

and we are not talking about "warheads".

nice try though

 

Ok. And? I'm not claiming the "use" of nukes violates the laws of physics.

I'm claiming - correctly - that your theory that nuclear detonation was used to destroy WTC, yet no EMP was felt, reported, noticed, studied, or even suggested, violates the laws of physics.

None of which prevent the dispersal of an EMP which interferes with electronics.

Well, as someone who has actually taken nuclear physics at a university level, I know the laws of physics include the fact that an uncontrolled nuclear reaction aka a "nuke" generates an EMP of varying (but detectable) degree.

Irrelevant tripe.

But attacking things like public education does?

The idea behind a nuclear explosion is to create an uncontrolled nuclear reaction. So, no.

And if it had taken two weeks, 9/11 Deniers would be saying it was produced too quickly to be accurate. Nice try, but after a decade, nonsense like what you say there is ridiculously easy to spot.

 

The truth shouldn't be that tough to tell, or take that long. However, it does take time to construct massive amounts of "official" BS.

 

so you believe EMP can be felt?

EMP was not reported, the effects of EMP was reported. Nice word games!

Well we know it was not studied, hell they didnt even check for conventional explosives much less nukes.

Uncontrolled nuclear reaction? HUH? What the hell is that? Since when are nukes an uncontrolled reaction?

Oh wait you mean there isnt a cop directing the alpha down one street and the gamm down another street and calling that uncontrolled.

Yes we do get a good laugh at the sillly word games.

Its all debunkers have!

 

Well, here we go again. There is an old saying about somebody assuming something. And once again, you prove it true.

I have never been an MP. I was classified as a Marine Security Guard, and my job for over 3 years was doing security at a Naval Weapons Station. Among other things I guarded them, and supervised their inspections and transportation to and from other Naval assets.

And we are not talking about warheads? Then what other kind of nuke is there? And since you seem totally unable to do any research. And since you also ignore suggestions that some research be done, let me answer some of my challenge questions I made to you.

I challenged you to tell us the smallest Atomic and Nuclear detonations. And I even gave you the answer to one of them. The Davy Crockett was the smallest atomic detonation on record, comeing in at around 10 tons of TNT. And I even showed you a video of that detonation so you could see hoe big even that was.

The smallest nuclear detonation was the Pascal-A underground test in 1957. There is still question if it was a full nuclear detonation, or a "fizzle". But it came in at 55 tons. The next known successful detonation all come in at around 500 tons. After struding the results of the recent North Korean Fizzles, more people are now accepting that Pascal-A was in fact a fizzle, and that 500 tons is the real lower limit for a nuclear detonation.

And you have still answered no challenges about either the radiation, or the flying shrapnel such a blast would have caused. Because shrapnel from a blast like that would have been traveling at hypersonic velocity. And unless you have some super-secret evidence that the US Government can hide and make dissapear all redioactivity and hypersonic shrapnel (not to mention the results the heat would have had on WTC contents), you are doing nothing more then barking at the moon.

 

They were?

*scratches head*

Where is this proof then? Because one of the first things to be knocked out would be electronic items, like camcorders. And laptop computers. EMP would have turned every single hard drive for probably 10 miles around into nothing but platters of random gibberish.

I know that thousands of cameras recorded the collapse. And probably hundreds of thousands of cell phones were in the area, and they all seem to have come through your EMP wave just fine.

Oh, but there are people who go on about photos of cars that they claim was caused by EMP. That sounds nice, to bad that is not something caused by EMP.

Oh, but there are some that would want you to believe this is the case. One of the most interesting was a paper done up by "Drs. Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood". This is apparently what most people use to claim that the cars were burned up by EMP.

And what are their specialites? Well, they are Doctors, so they know all there is to know about nuclear physics, right?

Wrong. Doctor Morgan Reynolds holds a degree in economics. His government experience was working for the Department of Labor.

And Doctor Judy Wood? Well, her degree is in "Materials Engineering Science". Her specialty in fact is in fact biomimicry and thermal stresses on bimaterial joints.

So no, she is not a nuclear scientist either. However, she is a believer that a nuke is what caused the damage. Even though her own web site is a tangled mess of unanswered questions and thousands of photographs and speculations without any kind of evidence.

 

Whats your degree?

Are you a nuclear scientist? For all we know you are a janitor with a keyboard?

 

And, as I said, this is just an example of your confirmation bias.

Your pretermined outcome is that the investigations were "wrong" somehow, so no matter what happens, you will draw the conclusion that the investigations were wrong. It's a classic case of the pathology known as confirmation bias.

The investigations took long, so you say they must have been "constructing" some fake story, ergo they were "wrong".

If the investigations were done in two weeks, you would say they weren't thorough enough or didn't take the time to investigate, ergo they were "wrong."

The length of time it took matters not to you. The only thing that matters to you is supporting your predetermined conclusion that the investigations were "wrong."

By electronics, not people.

Huh? What word games? No one reported any effect of EMP on 9/11, period.

Again, since there was no EMP evidence, which would be quite obvious, and no evidence of any radioactivity in lower Manhattan following the attacks, what else is there to study?

Since July 16 1945, 5:29:45 A.M. (Mountain War Time).

No, I mean it's uncontrolled, as in a cascading nuclear reaction causing an explosion... This is in converse to a controlled nuclear reaction, the type you see in nuclear power plants.

Are these not simple concepts for you?

Again, the accusation that anyone who dares disagree with the cult of 9/11 denial is a paid government conspirator. Don't you get tired of lobbing unfounded personal attacks all the time?

Any nuke would "do such a thing." It's physics. Do you have a theory as to how a nuclear explosion could be detonated without producing gamma radiation (which causes EMP)? I'd love to hear it.

You're questioning that thousands of video cell phones and other devices worked?

Where do you think your 9/11 Denier buddies are getting all the video of that day???

No. It doesn't. His point was that kooks like Judy Wood claim it does.

 

Look, it is not my job to prove a negative. It is your job to prove your facts.

And so far, you have given us exactly nothing. How about giving us some proof on this "micro-nuke", how it behaves, and examples of this?

Most of the things I put in there are from other nutcases. And since your claim that it must be a nuke, I was sure that you had read up on the fact yourself. Funny, that I seem to have more knowlege of your own claim then you yourself do.

Well here, let me do a little more research for you that you seem unable to do. This is directly from the website of one of the leaders of the "WTC Nuke" theory.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html

And such information runs rampant through this theory of yours. So you do not even appear to read up on the theories that support your own belief. You apparently just make it up as you go along.

 

All the videos are fake?

There are hundreds.

Or are they all filming the same elaborate holograms?

 

Worst of all are the ones who claim it was a small THERMONUCLEAR device