You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

madscientist3469 ago

I don't think this is the case. A nuclear blast from underneath would have thrown material outwards, which didn't happen.

Most likely, it was controlled demolition with previously placed thermite on structural pillars. The collapses of all three buildings in NY is consistent with this type of controlled demolition. Additionally, thermite was found in the rubble.

Now this leaves the question of where the hell the massive amount of dust came from, as well as where the mass of the buildings went. Somewhere around like 20% (going from memory) of the rubble you'd expect from buildings this size were actually present at ground zero. There's an interesting theory that nano-thermite was used, which could have been mixed into building materials, or even painted onto walls or columns. It seems feasible that nano-thermote could have generated a massive amount of fine particulate, which caused the cloud and loss of material.

There's another theory advanced energy weapons were used, but I prefer the simplest explanation, which would be thermite, potentially nano-thermite controlled demolition.

badruns ago

The controlled demolition from mossad is a given with the photographic evidence of their "b-thing" artists next to boxes and boxes and boxes of detonators.

I always thought the advanced energy weapon stuff was a tad loony, but it's hard to explain the damage done to the cars nearby otherwise. http://chazzsongs911.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-melted-cop-cars-7-blocks-from-wtc.html

madscientist3469 ago

Very fascinating links. Yeah, even nanothermite does not explain that very bizarre car damage from blocks away. In parking lots that the debris didn't even travel to.

Haven't yet watched the video ad 1 it's so long, but it's on my list to listen to during my commute. Will check it out soon.

Thanks for the links. It definitely does seem that some kind of advanced technology was used that the public isn't aware of.

Corpse_washer ago

You could argue that a nuclear shaped charge vaporizes stuff without sending big shockwaves through the ground. You could argue thermite being deployed, but there the video evidence shows no light and you would be stuck after the collapse with the same amount of material, just in a molten form but that was not the case.Also the dustification of this cant be explained with either nuke or thermite, but the top falling cant be explained with directed energy weapons. However, if you consider multiple sides playing different angles...

madscientist3469 ago

What is that picture depicting? I hadn't seen that before. Are those towers on top of building 7?

Corpse_washer ago

No. Thats one of the twin towers spire(coloumn?) that was left standing after the collapse, and then simply turned to dust.If i remember correctly this was above where the survivors were in the lobby(?).

madscientist3469 ago

Wow. Fascinating. I hadn't heard of this before. Going to dig further. Seems like evidence of some sort of advanced energy weapon if true.

Also hadn't heard of the stolen missile bit. I was aware of the theory that it was a missile, just didn't know it was confirmed to have come from a Russian sub. Going to research that further as well.

Corpse_washer ago

Confirmed?No. However, i stopped believing in coincidences a long-long time ago.

madscientist3469 ago

Same. There's a great quote from Sherlock about coincidences: "What do we say about coincidence? The universe is rarely so lazy."