Each tower was 110 stories tall. The complex had a basement only 7 stories deep. The amount of debris present immediately after collapse is nowhere near enough to account for the almost 2 million tons of material.
The usual explanation is that it was pulverised and flew away in the wind somehow. But if that's the case and it was pulverised by heat, why weren't the plumes hot? If it was pulverised by impact, why was the seismic activity the same as that recorded for the demolition of much smaller building like the Seattle Kingdome?
portal into another universe? idk, its a boring question.
a more interesting one is we know why they chose a financial capital of the US (they wanted to strike the jews) but why did they warn the jews? or did they? was israeli intelligence able to figure it out before it happened
What happened is a boring question? Where the towers went is a boring question? How can you move on to figuring out the why, how or who if we can't even say "what" happened yet?
It's long, but after watching the first 15 minutes of the presentation I was intrigued enough to watch the whole thing. Once you see it, it's difficult to unsee.
Okay, I watched to the 16 minute mark. So you're suggesting the material was pulverized and scattered to the wind? Having mixed concrete myself and having demolished blocks of concrete, I can concur with your suggestion. I still don't know why you posted this thread with a question as the topic title when you already knew the answer.
My title is a question based on the current "mainstream" consensus that the buildings were demolished in a controlled fashion using nano-thermite, and it's that nano-thermite and the impact with the ground that accounts for the lack of sufficient debris (it was pulverised somehow - it's not there). The problem is that there isn't enough evidence of heat (needed to vaporise) or seismic activity (needed to crush).
To save you the rest of the video (thanks for actually watching and responding btw), the premise is that the destruction was caused by some kind of free energy beam (think Tesla) that caused the structure to mostly "dustify" without heat or pressure.
going by her logic we know that the "what" is there was a WTC and then there wasnt a WTC. so here were talking about the "how", but this method of thinking doesnt mean you ignore everything in the "why" category because youre going to have to come up with answer for that "why" and if you cant, you have to take a step back and consider the other "how"s. its especially relevant here because of how similar the event was to exactly what we were being told. at that point "why?" is a pretty important question.
ill admit that if we are ONLY looking at "how" then xyz future weapon is a possibility as much as controlled demolition and jet fuel totally being able to melt steel beams in a giant crucible. but, if the answer to "why" is just testing a new future weapon, one which would necessitate many industry revolutionizing technology breakthroughs then why would they be sitting on their asses with this tech for 20 goddamn years doing literally nothing with it.
that "why" doesnt make sense, you have to go back and look at the other options
view the rest of the comments →
realmonster ago
the beams werent 1 long continuous beam from the ground to the top floor. they were sections.
Unchosen1 ago
Is this relevant?
Each tower was 110 stories tall. The complex had a basement only 7 stories deep. The amount of debris present immediately after collapse is nowhere near enough to account for the almost 2 million tons of material.
The usual explanation is that it was pulverised and flew away in the wind somehow. But if that's the case and it was pulverised by heat, why weren't the plumes hot? If it was pulverised by impact, why was the seismic activity the same as that recorded for the demolition of much smaller building like the Seattle Kingdome?
realmonster ago
portal into another universe? idk, its a boring question.
a more interesting one is we know why they chose a financial capital of the US (they wanted to strike the jews) but why did they warn the jews? or did they? was israeli intelligence able to figure it out before it happened
Unchosen1 ago
What happened is a boring question? Where the towers went is a boring question? How can you move on to figuring out the why, how or who if we can't even say "what" happened yet?
realmonster ago
are you suggesting an alternate 9/11 dimension? how is "where did the material go?" relevant to anything?
I can tell you what didn't happen. 100,000,000 space jews didn't quickly dismantle large portions of the tower and beam it up in to space.
Unchosen1 ago
I'm suggesting that it had to go somewhere. It didn't disappear into another dimension. Are you familiar at all with Judy Wood and her evidence?
realmonster ago
do you have any suggestions?
Unchosen1 ago
Yes I do!
Here's her 2012 presentation:
https://youtu.be/8jC9W2vbyrs
It's long, but after watching the first 15 minutes of the presentation I was intrigued enough to watch the whole thing. Once you see it, it's difficult to unsee.
realmonster ago
Okay, I watched to the 16 minute mark. So you're suggesting the material was pulverized and scattered to the wind? Having mixed concrete myself and having demolished blocks of concrete, I can concur with your suggestion. I still don't know why you posted this thread with a question as the topic title when you already knew the answer.
Unchosen1 ago
My title is a question based on the current "mainstream" consensus that the buildings were demolished in a controlled fashion using nano-thermite, and it's that nano-thermite and the impact with the ground that accounts for the lack of sufficient debris (it was pulverised somehow - it's not there). The problem is that there isn't enough evidence of heat (needed to vaporise) or seismic activity (needed to crush).
To save you the rest of the video (thanks for actually watching and responding btw), the premise is that the destruction was caused by some kind of free energy beam (think Tesla) that caused the structure to mostly "dustify" without heat or pressure.
realmonster ago
going by her logic we know that the "what" is there was a WTC and then there wasnt a WTC. so here were talking about the "how", but this method of thinking doesnt mean you ignore everything in the "why" category because youre going to have to come up with answer for that "why" and if you cant, you have to take a step back and consider the other "how"s. its especially relevant here because of how similar the event was to exactly what we were being told. at that point "why?" is a pretty important question.
ill admit that if we are ONLY looking at "how" then xyz future weapon is a possibility as much as controlled demolition and jet fuel totally being able to melt steel beams in a giant crucible. but, if the answer to "why" is just testing a new future weapon, one which would necessitate many industry revolutionizing technology breakthroughs then why would they be sitting on their asses with this tech for 20 goddamn years doing literally nothing with it.
that "why" doesnt make sense, you have to go back and look at the other options