Nuclear Demolition

Discuss what you think really happened in New York on 9/11/2001

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:06 pm

Now let me propose a radical idea. Conspiracy theory used as an end in and of itself for the express purpose of providing plausible deniability. In other words the more conspiracies that promulgate and circulate the zeitgeist, the less likely that sober critical minds will be willing to examine what sounds like another. This provides the perfect cover for any intelligence agency operation. J. Carrion


ps. May I have my edit function restored, please?
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am


Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby ryguy » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:58 pm

pigswillfly wrote:
Ummn, coal is a fossil fuel, steel and cement are not.


So the inside/outside of all buildings in NYC are built entirely of steel and cement? Steel and cement ceilings, floors and walls too?
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby mosfet » Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:06 pm

At about 5:19 in the video appears a scene purportedly showing the earthquake preceding the collapse of the building. This earthquake is caused by the nuclear detonation and is the premise of his whole argument. There is even superimposed text on the video describing the "earthquake". Now you don't have to be a video expert but if you watch the smoke and not the building you will see that the smoke shakes along with the building. This means that either the camera is moving or somebody enhanced the video with a shake which is pretty easy to do. At that point I realized how bogus this guy is because if you're so smart and you can't figure that out, something is wrong or it's an intentional deception to promulgate his supposed theory.

Here is the link to the main video page

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/dimitri-kh ... 21675.html
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:17 pm

Access Denied wrote:So let me get this straight, you’re actually willing to believe your government intentionally killed over 3,000 of it’s own citizens based solely on your own personal incredulity ..


It seems you have some personal incredulity of your own. There is no doubt your government would intentionally kill 3,000 of it's own citizens as a means to an end, if they thought they could get away with it. They've done it before, it's on record.

Access Denied wrote:... based solely on your ... ignorance of basics physics?


I find this statement to be relative and conceited. Your knowledge of physics may surpass Mur's but does that justify throwing around the word "ignorance". How do you then argue with someone who has a better understanding of physics than yourself? Would that make you the ignorant one?

The 9/11 debate cannot be won with a "my source is superior to yours" or "I'm smarter than you" attitude. Both sides have "experts" putting forward different theories. Here we have another 9/11 discussion that has deteriorated in insults, the second in a week. Is this patriotism gone mad? Seriously guys, do you really believe there are no unanswered questions about the 9/11 attack on the WTC, the destruction of the towers, the attack on The Pentagon, the Shankville crash? The alleged terrorists who were not terrorists and in other parts of the world on that day, the alleged terrorists with CIA drug running connections, the lack of accountability by anyone so far, including judicial process. :?: :?: :?: Because that's the way you are coming across.

Take a minute to consider how very ready you are to accept the possibility of hoaxes, frauds and gov't involvement in the UFO core story, now compare that to your response to the 9/11 story.

ps. Chrlz, you may find therapy beneficial to overcome your aversion to lists.

ppss. May I have my edit function restored, please?
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:29 pm

@mosfet, yes I saw that part of the video you refer to. I take your point under consideration, I am not familiar with video techniques so I cannot make a judgement on whether it has been manipulated but I was not impressed with that footage. It was one of those submissions that I take with a grain of salt. There is other evidence of seismic disturbance that indicate anomolous explosions that would be more useful. Those of use who can't accept the towers collapsed soley due to the effects of the planes find the nuclear explosion theory offers a few explanations. It also raises lots more unanswered questions.
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby ryguy » Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:32 pm

murnut wrote:The US govt had never lied about anything, the US govt has never killed anyone.


No one has said that. But because they've lied about other things doesn't mean that everything that comes from every government agency is a lie. Does U.S. kill non-citizens, yes. In how many real-world cases has the U.S. intentionally murdered thousands of U.S. civilians? Name at least one or two cases? I'm not saying it's not possible but I'm trying to think of examples and drawing a blank.

Everything they have told us about 911 is absolutely true.
No responders ever got sick or died.
There were in fact WMD in Iraq.


There were WMD - at least biological chemical. The threat was just overestimated by CIA (at the encouragement of the Bush administration, no doubt).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie.pdf

Heavily redacted - the Senate is currently in a battle with CIA to release more of the document - but there were, in fact, WMD (biological/chemical mostly) in Iraq at one point.

The wars there and in Afghanistan are just and make America and it's world safer
The military industrial complex did not benefit from 911
The Patriot Act was never thought of prior to 911
No one ever envisioned planes used as missiles prior to 911


Regardless of the situation, the U.S. always looks for ways to turn a bad situation to its advantage. Did they likely use the fallout from 9/11 to gather public support for Iraq and Afghanistan? Of course - but still, that does not prove they intentionally caused the tragedy.

If you crash your car and you get a new car from the insurance payment, does that mean you intentionally crashed your car?

Whistleblowers such as Sibel Edmonds are all liars regarding 911


Most "whistleblowers" are attention seekers, frauds, or they are people who have completely misunderstood or are overdramatizing their experience or what they've witnessed.

The US govt would never cover up anything


Have you ever kept any part of your own life private and out of the public eye? If so, why? Does that mean you lie about everything?

There may be bad elements within the government, but that doesn't prove anything about 9/11. Everything has to be taken on a case by case basis and the legitimate evidence explored/examined with logic and common sense. I see very little common sense throughout 9-11 conspiracy theories out there.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:39 pm

ryguy wrote:
pigswillfly wrote:
Ummn, coal is a fossil fuel, steel and cement are not.


So the inside/outside of all buildings in NYC are built entirely of steel and cement? Steel and cement ceilings, floors and walls too?


Well, the floors were made of cement actually, the ceilings were the suspended tile type, a bit of carpet, office machinery and furnishings. I shouldn't think enough to burn for months, but not much else by the appearance and accounts of the debris. Field accounts of no office debris larger than the palm of a hand have been reported, granted there would have been some exceptions but the majority of the debris was construction material. Also, much of the buildings were reduced to dust and covered half of New York, that doesn't leave much combustible material to burn in the foundations.
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Zep Tepi » Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:47 pm

There is a lot of ignorance being displayed in this thread and I have to say I'm really disappointed by it. After looking into this guy's claims, it is patently obvious he is out of his depth and he doesn't have the tiniest clue about anything that happened on September 11th 2001. FFS, he get's even the basics wrong!

This is 2010, everyone of us here has at our fingertips almost instant access to all of the information about these events -on both sides of the argument- yet it still considered acceptable to post b.s. as fact?!

Not here it isn't. Make your claims and back it up with good solid evidence or don't bother making the claim in the first place. Claiming ignorance isn't good enough, especially not in this case. There is more than enough information and verified facts out there.

A good starting point for those people who believe it was impossible for airliner impacts to cause the destruction of the two towers, is the official NIST report. Another is this paper:
WTC Report

Read it, and try to understand at least some of it. When you have, make note of the fact that not one single bonafide expert has disagreed with the findings. Not one. In the entire world. Just think about that for a second.

If you still think of airliners as "hollow aluminium tubes" after reading, there's not a lot I can say about that ;)

And btw, posting about what governments have and haven't done in the past is irrelevant in this case. We're discussion the destruction of the WTC and we're basing it on actual, verifiable, peer-reviewed EVIDENCE!
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:54 pm

If you crash your car and you get a new car from the insurance payment, does that mean you intentionally crashed your car? Ryan


No, it doesn't and it certainly doesn't mean that because I didn't do it that it never happens. It is a reality.

Most "whistleblowers" are attention seekers, frauds, or they are people who have completely misunderstood or are overdramatizing their experience or what they've witnessed. Ryan


That's a bit of a generalisation, although I tend to agree it is not absolute.

There may be bad elements within the government, but that doesn't prove anything about 9/11. Ryan


I agree, but it does prove that one doesn't need to be incredulous to believe the gov't capable of harming it's own citizens. I personally don't believe it was "the gov't" per se although there would have to be gov't complicity at some levels. It was a private job, follow the money trail.

Everything has to be taken on a case by case basis and the legitimate evidence explored/examined with logic and common sense. Ryan


Yes, true and that also points back to my point about different "experts" having different opinions. When a subject gets bogged down in differing opinions on detail it is helpful to take a step back and look at the big picture. Motive, means and opportunity.
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby mosfet » Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:00 pm

Any skyscraper has its steel support beams embedded in the underlying bedrock. In some cases you may have to go very deep. The glacial deposits formed Long Island depositing sediment over the existing bedrock and even scraped the bedrock and this is evident in a number of places. When the glacier melted it gouged out the Hudson River in addition you can see where the swirling water eroded the area shown in the pictures of the tower footprint. These are associated with the glacier melt and fast-moving water. Which by the way under high pressure can cut through steel.

The column of concrete and steel known as the twin Tower supported by steel beams embedded in the Granite substrate support a tremendous weight and represented a fantastic force or vector in a downward direction. Every collective ounce of weight in that building was supported by steel columns in the bedrock. If you were to go to the very top of the building and hit the steel with a hammer you could probably record that in the bedrock with a sensitive instrument, that's how direct every square inch of weight in the building was transposed and focused into the bedrock. Now take the situation where at the very top of the building a supporting beam (interconnected to the bedrock) suddenly fails. Given the density of steel the impulse would be instantly transposed to the bedrock and this would be the equivalent of a seismic disturbance. As another support structure failed it also would be transposed directly to the bedrock. You can almost think of the building as steel bell and when hit anywhere it would reverberate. Considering this,it's not surprising that seismic activity was registered even before the building visually started its cascading collapse.
Last edited by mosfet on Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:04 pm

Well, that puts an end to the discussion. I can't even say "the sky is blue" because someone may call me out and I'd have to provide the evidence.

Steve et al, if you have accepted the official version of 9/11then you have done so at the expense of multiple witness testimony that dispute the findings. These people were there, they can't all be mistaken. Also, I dispute that there is not a single bona fide expert who challenges the official story. Like I said before, lots of experts around, it's not difficult to find people who disagree on a set of findings.
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Zep Tepi » Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:08 pm

If it's not difficult and you dispute what I have written, PRODUCE the evidence that backs you up!

It's as simple as that.
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:09 pm

Oh My Gosh - Does RU stand for Rightwing Utalitarians? or Republican's United? It's very much starting to look like the Admin have a political agenda on this subject. :shock:
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby pigswillfly » Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:14 pm

Zep Tepi wrote:If it's not difficult and you dispute what I have written, PRODUCE the evidence that backs you up!

It's as simple as that.


But why would I bother? You have already made up your mind, you are not open to consider alternatives, you have already told me there are no bona fide experts supporting the conspiracy theory. PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE is like some all encompassing catchcry, I could produce as much evidence as I liked but it can't change your mind set, you would just produce your "expert evidence".

This is so ironic.
User avatar
pigswillfly
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Zep Tepi » Mon Dec 06, 2010 3:18 pm

Stop dodging the issue. You have been provided with links and information but what have you given? What have you provided to back up your nonsensical claims?

Hot air.
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

PreviousNext

Google

Return to 911 - What Really Happened?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron