Nuclear 911

[graverobber35]

this is all hooey , and stolen clips from the Discovery channel

[Nuker1337]

@graverobber35 You're stupid. And it's the other way around; Discovery Channel stole from this excellent film (and all the others by Peter Kuran).

[machfron]

What about the elevated levels of tritium in the area ? My comment was removed.

[machfron]

The clouds of dust were enormous and could not have been generated by gravitational collapse alone.

[thirdclass2006]

You've obviosuly never seen a building collapse from an earthquake, then.

[machfron]

What makes it certain it was an inside job was "UA 175" flouting a number of physical laws.

[machfron]

Watch 911 Taboo for proof there were no planes.

[WTCnucleardemolition]

Google "9/11 Cancers"

[devilslayer888]

My Pol-Sci teacher told the class that thw WTC had radon things in the buiding before they got hit by the planes. So in a matter os speaking, their is some truth, but the terrorists did not have a dirty bomb in the plane with them. It was already there. So we'll call it 50/50. As they say "conspiricy starts with a hint of truth, then blasted, and twisted out of proportion."

[underarmor70]

ive seen one of the nuclear weapons accident at mguire afb in nj a nuke caugh fire and contaminated the whole base

[machfron]

911 was nuclear.The towers were most probably nuked with new generation pure fusion devices.

[devilslayer888]

No way. Nuclear radiation would have killed many in New york. It would not be able to be covered up. China, and Russia, are still nuclear threats to America. They say we are the cause, may be, America nuked Japan to teach the USSR, "We are READY TO KILL YOU RUSSIA". HOW EVER AMERICA WILL NOT STRIKE WITH NUKES FIRST. They will strike America first, or, sell at low cost, or give their nukes to third world terrorists like Osama, and his crazies. Or nuke our allies. That is the truth.

[machfron]

I'm sure the radiation is still causing cancers.A low yield pure fusion device is the only explanation for the instantaneous pulverisation of the towers.

[devilslayer888]

It could be abestos, or other insilation, combined with dust, and other things. There is not enough information to prove that a radiated device was used. Cancers can come from sun exposure as I'm sure you know, and other things. I would like to see hard evidence that a radiated device was used, and not an edited video. Neary anything can be altered these days. Always ask to see the hard, un-refutable evidence. with editing videos and movies, it is too easy to fake things these days.

[machfron]

Lawrence Livermore and other labs found the tritium level highly elevated at ground zero.

[thirdclass2006]

No, it is not.

[TKTK00]

uhuh yeah totaly

[thirdclass2006]

A pure fusion device would not only have blown up a whole lot more than just one tower, it also would've released a burst of neutrons. There's no way to hide the effects from such a thing.

[machfron]

The yield would have been low.The massive steel skeleton and 75,000

tons of concrete would have acted as a containment structure.

[thirdclass2006]

Steel isn't a good shield against neutrons.

Neutrons bounce off heavy nucli like a ball in a pinball machine.

You need plastics like polyethelene to shield against neutrons. In reactors, several layers of this matrial, plus a tank of water surrounding the reactor, are used to reduce neutron release to a minimum.

In addition, radio-isotopes would've been made from the neutron collisions.

[machfron]

The authorities forbade geiger counters in the area.The steel was shipped overseas.the evidence was destroyed.

[thirdclass2006]

How convienent for the conspiracy theorists.

Removes the burden of proof for them.

[machfron]

The boxcutter conspiracy theorists,you mean?

[thirdclass2006]

No, I refer to "The govt did it!" conspiracy theorists.

You know, people like you.

The statement you made allows you to dismiss requests for evidence that support your idea.

All you have Machfron is speculation.

You have no real evidence to support your claim.

[machfron]

We have no proof of nuclear demolition because the evidence was shipped for melting overseas.

[thirdclass2006]

And that's what keeps your speculation alive.

It's bad logic; "The towers were destroyed by nukes, but there's no evidence because it was shipped away!"

Well, if there's no proof or evidence, then how can one say for certain that it was nuclear demolition?

[machfron]

It is likely but not certain that nukes were used on the towers on 9/11.What else can explain their instant conversion into sub micron dust ?

[thirdclass2006]

Instant conversion? Sub micron dust?

The problem with your view is that you exaggerate too much.

Dust occurs whenever any building collapses. If you see footage of a building collapsing in an earthquake produce dust, will you blame a nuke for that too?

[machfron]

Ten seconds is as close as instant as one can get.

[thirdclass2006]

Not for those that learn or deal with science.

A lot happened for the universe in that time frame.

[machfron]

I am an engineering graduate.You are not an honest person.

[thirdclass2006]

So I'm not an honest person for disagreeing with your ideas?

That's a good way to kill the conversation.

[machfron]

You haven't answered the question about the elevated tritium levels at ground zero.

[thirdclass2006]

Since according to you I'm not an honest person, there's little point of me providing an answer.

Now please, get a real hobby.

[1twiztidbitch]

gasmasks make my day =]

[Kreatorix]

STOP THIS FEAR AND CRAZY MAKING DESINFORMATION CAMPAIGN !

YOU DO THE WORK FOR REAL ENEMIES, pointing to Bush, four fingers on YOU.