911 Eyewitness - Intense heat and bright flashes indicate nu

[soldierboyz22]

the H-Bomb Pic wasnt an H-Bomb, in fact its a High Explosiove Artillery Shell, Somewhat similar to Grabble. 

[kkcgaming]

okay....the explosions are the remains of the hot exploding plane that crashed reactiong with the gas in the engine...if it was c4 or anything like that it would have did more damage..

[d240786]

@kkcgaming your comment is pure jibberish and goes against common sense, the jet fuel is explosive it burns when lit it doesn't keep exploding it explodes from an initial spark and then burns very quickly, if you see a plane crash where the the fuel explodes the fire from it does not last long it is the material it sets on fire that continues to burn.

[MRTHATSFAKEANDGAY]

i wonder why here in norway we havent heard of building 7? we only got news on twin towers....

[seanymo]

this wasnt the same! first off they were the biggest buildings in the world. They suffered a huge impact with a plane and huge explosion which would have caused massive structural damage. Also jet fuel burning at 700 degrees celsius! The weight of the upper sections of the building became too much for the already damaged structure, also the steel would have lossed 50 to 60 per cent of its strength. Once the floor trusses failed (From explosion) the steel columns were the only thing holding

[d240786]

@seanymo Dude a plane could not take down the twin tower's nor could a fire, it could burn for weeks and be completely gutted but it still wouldn't fall.

You could strip the whole thing and still see the steel structure standing there with no floors or ceilings all that stuff is merely for it to function as an office space for humans.

Maybe some trillionaire would be kind enough to one day build the towers again and fly planes in to them just for all the skeptics.

[seanymo]

@d240786 yes a plane could not take down the towers, nor could fire. But the impact of the plane, the huge explosion from the jet fuel, and the inferno which ingulfed the upper floors collectively led to the collapse of the towers.

[d240786]

@seanymo If you choose to believe what you've been told then carry on but anybody with any knowledge of this type of incedent will tell you that it is a load of rubbish, the tower's core would have warped and bent over backwards before it fell the way it did.

You can watch video evidence of the architect specifically stating that the towers due to thier place in the skyline had to be purposely designed to take multiple impacts from aircraft that at the time were heavier and carried more >>>>>

[d240786]

@d240786 fuel than the planes that hit, did you read that?MULTIPLE impacts from planes that were heavier and carrying more fuel.

One plane hit each tower and as clear in the video as the collapsing itself the planes were completely torn apart by the impact, they were no match for the steel cores.The fuel would have been mainly burnt off in the initial explosion which wouldn't of even came close to melting steel.

The fire caused by the explosion would not have even been as hot as the explosion!

[seanymo]

@d240786 just because steel is a harder metal than aluminium does not mean it will not be damaged by it. The damage caused is not just proporsional to the hardness of the metal but also weight and velocity. Take a look at the space shuttle columbia i think (not sure), it was damaged by foam due to the velocity. It is quite evident from the footage that there was massive structural damage caused by the initial impacts

[d240786]

@seanymo I didn't even say that was the case, it is not clear that there was damage caused structurally, all the damage was superficial and only damaged the shell and the floors that they hit, there was very little damage to the structure of the building with only secondary steel frames which made up each floor being damaged I don't care which false computer reconstruction you've seen which says the core was damaged.

The floors above would of collapsed if the core below them was damaged>>>>>

[seanymo]

@d240786 the core would have bent over backwards? are you serious? what qualifications do you have that make you so expert in this topic? it would be impossible to plan a demolition of the twin towers without anyone noticing. Where were the explosives? wiring? supporting structures would have been demolished also.

[d240786]

@seanymo I am saying thats how likely the building was to collapse, there is more chance that the core would have warped and bent and toppled to the side than a vertical freefall!!!

Wireless thermite devices which literally incinerate themselves to cut steel supports in buildings look it up they use wired versions all the time in demolitions because wires are cheaper but wireless can easily be afforded when your about to make billions from a war which the tax payers are paying for!

[seanymo]

@d240786 vertical freefall, it is quite clear that one of the towers leaned to one side and then began to fall, you can actually see the steel give way on one corner of the building and the upper part leans to that side and begins to fall. why cause the buildings to collapse anyway. if you were going to go with the trouble of faking multiple hijackings, crashing them into buildings remotely and then demolish the building with explosives. why not just plant a bomb? it would have the same effect

[d240786]

@seanymo I already answered that, don't you remember the last time they did that?

They we're caught red handed aswell, like I said the last time I answered you about this I said you should look it up, it's no secret.

[seanymo]

@d240786 why crash a plane into the towers if the american government could have more easily just planted a bomb and blamed that on terrorists? the huge explosion with the impact of the plane would have destroyed any explosive devices.

How exactlydo you believe the towers were felled?

[d240786]

@seanymo You can't just plant a bomb and say it was someone else when you have already tried to do it in the past on the same buildings, don't you remember?

[seanymo]

the intense soarce of heat was the intense heat caused by the inferno in the building

[choclatesaltyballz]

@seanymo it werent much of an inferno mate

[seanymo]

@choclatesaltyballz are you blind?

[choclatesaltyballz]

@seanymo dont be daft. ill send you a proper inferno in a building that still stood afterwards, like every other steel framed building thats ever had a fire in history

[seanymo]

@choclatesaltyballz the building up! Alot of these columns were severed at the impact of the plane. I have recently seen videos which actually show the collumns bend and snap immedietly before the collapse

[choclatesaltyballz]

@seanymo your a typical braindead idiot. what about the hundreds of tonnes of structural steel underneath the crash site, designed to withstand a collapse like this. approx 10 seconds they fell in. impossible without being primed for demolition. steel melts at 2500 celcius so its ludicrous to think jet fuel melted or even weakened the steel. what caused tower 7 to collapse please? and why was there pools of molten metal found? where was the plane and bodies from flight 93. come on, gimme answers

[l34052]

I cant explain what happened to the cars in the st but i really dont think it was a nuclear device at all though because even a small nuclear device is massively bigger than a conventional weapon and i feel sure the world would have noticed a blindingly bright flash of light and the subsequent demolition of a couple of square miles of new york city in the pressure wave/fireball.

[f0rumrr]

Let me guess your a salon whore that doesnt know shit about physics. People like you make me sick. Preach more ignorance faggot.

[f0rumrr]

911thology will explain to you how this whole event happened. I didnt believe at first, but after watching all the vids IT JUST MAKES PHYSICAL SENSE.

[Skeptic121]

If it was a thermonuclear fusion (hydrogen) bomb, how was it set off without a fission (uranium or plutonium) bomb? Any fission bomb would have left unmistakable radioactive isotopes.

[reallybigname]

I am a conspiracy theorist, and definitely don't believe the official story,. But, I wanted to point out that the kinetic energy of the building falling was capable of producing intense heat on the ground when released.

[jnoort]

Vapourized steel? Huh?

[WTCnucleardemolition]

Google "9/11 Cancers"

[martinhendo]

Cars do not explode 80 to 90 floors below the area of damage to the towers, you don't require a scientist of any kind to sort that one out. The aviation fuel would burn itself out within a few minutes of first explosion only igniting fires around the areas that it reached..

Not cars on the street!!

Melted glass and tyres that have simply gone, all caused by the collapse only?

Aye right then.

A recent demolition of a tower block near me did not cause any cars to burn etc

[junbug1029]

Uhm, the buildings were hit by flying jets which contained jet fuel, which is an explosive & burn agent....hence the charred cars, flames, etc. Plus there were computers, phones and many other various electrical pieces of equipment in the buildings which woulkd have shorted out during the collapse. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

[truebluestar]

Higher levels of tritium were measured for several days after the controlled demolition of WTC. There are almost 30 other anomalies that can't be explained any other way. Dr. Bill Deagle has been trying to have samples analyzed for several years now but every lab he goes to, the doctors planning to do the analysis are threatened and back down.

[realistromeo]

So are they suggesting a Hydrogen bomb was also used? or a form of (hydrogen/nuke?)

because if they suggest this there should be higher than normal traces of tritium in and around that area. (significantly more than a natural occurense) or even tritiated paints and gas used in illuminating dials and emergency lighting.

If a bomb was used they could easily test for markers which still have a good half-life.

[luvmyctd]

Some interesting reading here. Do a search for

"Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11"

I'd post the link but YT wouldn't allow it

[Truth666]

Clinton endorses Obama = theater to help Obama's crowd accept to support Clinton, once Obama, after the coming "scandal", will be "forced" to exit the "race".

CLINTON not Illuminati agent Obomber NEXT & LAST PRESIDENT "elected " by the IlluminatiSheep, even if you are already in the slaughterhouse, it's never TOO LATE to understand that the TRUTH is NEVER TOO HORRIBLE.

Google

9/11 for dummies Matt Marriott

Google, incl. YOUTUBE = only mass media NOT controlled by the Illuminati

[bcherbs]

2 planes hit 2 builings and 2 collapses with similiar result's, then you have builing 7 do the exact same thing but with no planes involved c'mon people ask ?'s.. once is a mistake,twice is a coincident but three times is a pattern!!

[JPPolachek]

@bcherbs well building 7 wasnt hit by a plane,,,,,but it was hit by a collapsing 110 Story SKYSCRAPER.....it was on fire all day long....and no sprinklers....no firefighting at all was done at 7...and it was built above a 3 story powerstation....the building was standing on 3 big legs..one of the legs failed due to the fire......thats why the building collapsed...If you watch the final 20 seconds of the buildings life..you will see the NorthEast Penthouse collapse 10 seconds before the rest

[JSSTyger]

@JPPolachek

I'm just saying I hope you realize that there is no definitive proof that tower 1 debris hit WTC 7. Every photo/video is from the wrong side. It is also in NIST's Final Report that the uncontrolled fires would have taken down a WTC 7 even without the initial structural damage. NIST also says long span floor trusses (over ConEdison, etc), and diesel fuel tanks were not significant to the buildings demise. Have fun justifying all this.

[JPPolachek]

@JSSTyger Yep..that is true.but you are wrong in saying ALL the pictures are from the wrong side..I have seen many pictures from the damaged side..THere are many pictures of the South side that show the Damage from the collapse of the north tower..that side had alot of structural damage and large areas of fire. ANd the fire did weaken one truss and cause the collapse starting on the NE side...hence why the NE Penthouse fell 10 seconds before the rest of the building...EXPLAIN THAT ONE?????????

[JPPolachek]

@JSSTyger If you believe bombs or thermite took out the building from the bottom first.....EXPLAIN WHY THE NE PENTHOUSE COLLAPSED THROUGH THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING A FULL 10 Seconds before the rest of the building can be seen collapsing......but the Truther Documentaries never seem to show that...hmmm...why is that.....maybee because it debunks the controlled demo theoryl........There is no way they would have said.."LETS BLOW UP THE PENTHOUSE FIRST.......LOL......so whats your explanation?????

[JSSTyger]

@JPPolachek

Who says the East penthouse wasn't taken out from the base as well? And who knows why it went first. Lots of known demolitions are done in phases.

And any expert physicist will tell you that free fall of the north face is NOT EXCUSED by the collapse of the east penthouse. A falling object cannot pull another object faster that it itself is going.

[JSSTyger]

So its not that truthers "ignore" the collapse of the east penthouse...its that the east penthouse is irrelevant. If it pulls the rest of the structure down with it, the rest of the structure still meets resistance and still cannot attain free fall accelerations. But free fall happened. Its in the NIST report.

[JPPolachek]

@JSSTyger Umm, NO.....you cant try to use the Penthouse as part of your case you silly boy.....no one would blow up the Penthouse on the top of a building 10 seconds before the rest of the building begins to fall.....and plus...there are no explosions heard at any time prior to the collapse of anything on that day.....But the collapse of the Penthouse matches the official explanation perfectly....since that was written by the best engineers in the country...you are just some internet jocky

[MaxSafeheaD]

Oh dear, this is ridiculous.

[ZotDudot7]

I think the nuke theory is pushing it a bit...

Why didn't anyone suffer radiation sickness as a result of 9/11?

[motonegros]

I think this is just disinfo, taking information (charge flashes in collapse), and tying it in with some wild ass, easily disprovable conspiracy theory.

The dust residue was not radioactive, but it did have sulfer and barium in it.

[lordomicron]

Which are commonly used chemicals.

[motonegros]

In the explosives industry.

[TheStormchaser1]

You are correct that is what Thermate contains of. With that us proof there was a lot of thermate in WTC. Why WTC vaporized.

I am right now calculating how many Thermate charges were in WTC currently estimating over 5000.

[TheStormchaser1]

Thermate-TH3 is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder. Binders which thermates use is called Polybutadiene Acrylonitrile copolymer which is found in the Booster Rockets of the Shuttle's SRB.

Now concrete explodes at 2500 degrees. Why WTC Vaporized. Thermate can burn at 3000 degrees. Anyone who uses incedenary gernades knows exactly what I am talking about.

Thermite is used in civilian demolitions. Thermate is used in military known as TH-3.

[motonegros]

Once, when I was in the service, I popped an incendiary grenade and set it on top of a big rock.

It melted its down INSIDE the rock and little streams of lava ran down the sides.

Quite impressive. IMO it would cut through steel like a knife through butter and make very little noise at all.

[lordomicron]

First, the pic on the right is NOT of a hydrogen bomb test. Second, the bomb test was conducted underground, not inside a building. Third, the scale of the pictures is far from equal. Fourth, the left pic shows dust clouds of concrete and burned paper, plastic and such. The right pic's dust is soil.

[ExperimentalArmy]

I don't know for sure, until the government shows evidence (which they will in the future), but if 9/11 is a conspiracy then nukes would not be used. High Explosives yes, but not nukes, even the smallest warhead ever built would incinerate the building along with a couple blocks in less then a microsecond.

[izzysykopth]

agreed

[TheStormchaser1]

Thermate is only explosive which could do it. Even with the dust cloud. It is also same type of dust cloud in countless explosions and volcanic eruptions. Stop with trying to disinform what we already have. Explosives. No need for nuclear conspiracies there were none.

[gidsum29]

What the fuck is "Thermate"? Do you mean thermite? There is NO SUCH THING AS A THERMITE BOMB YOU FUCKING DUMBASS! Thermite is a tool used to cut steel...Its not a bomb you fucking simple turd. It looks like YOU are the one that has been "disinformed"....Brain washed by youtube. What a shame.....That thermite BULLSHIT has been debunked YEARS AGO.

[seanbongz]

wow, first time iv seen this one

[401Hammer]

Well, nothing surprises me anymore.

[throttlelever]

It was the EMP that fried the cars

[lordomicron]

EMP frying cars, dude you don't have a clue what EMP is. A car won't get fried because of that, those cars burned because of all falling debree on it. Do you know how much gas and burning paper were falling down when the buildings collapsed? Maybe cars would burn then.

[jllunm]

Cars don't burn because burning paper falls on them. Any fire that was burning was put out as soon as all the debris started falling as you'll note when the topmost floors collapsed. The cars can only have been burned by some tremendous energy source at the bottom - whether from some larger bomb or as a result of directed electromagnetism. EMP is one type of way in which to harness the energy of electromagnetism. There are others that have been in development for some time now.

[lordomicron]

Burning paper? Ever thought about all the gaslines running through the building? There was plenty of falling debree which could have put the cars on fire. EMP bursts don't cause a car to go boom.

[ExperimentalArmy]

EMP, or electrical magnetic pulse, only affects complex electrical systems, the only device the can currently produce an emp shock wave is a high altitude nuke.

[elyohcsrev]

All one can say, as a 50+ year old civil engineer, is it is perfectly accurate to state that these steel frames structures MUST have had their main elements neatly and evenly fragmented (probably using cord charges and other shaped explosives ) to have collapsed into their own footprint, and at near free fall speed.

Do the math, don't listen to ignorant dishonest TV personalities and WAKE UP USA.

[leftysergeant]

The "Finnish military expert" alluded to in support of nuke comparison is a fraud. Dumb SOB says that brown dust in a cloud indicates radiation. WRONG. I his nuke blast that shows that, the DIRT is brown. There were class A fires in the towers, and those tend to produce at least some brown SMOKE. Coocoo.

[surfviper]

Evidence of WTC demolition is overwhelming: - massive amounts of material explosively thrown outward and upward, even at the very top of the towers, before kinetic energy accumulated - near free-fall speeds - symmetric collapses - pyroclastic powdering of concrete - eye-witness reports of explosions - molten steel hotter than jet fuel can burn - clean slices on virtually all framing - thermate residue Non-standard demo but clearly demo. Want specifics? Investigate! But it WAS an INSIDE JOB!

[antasaur]

thier was no freaking planes you morons. the media used coputer grafics to cover up that missles hit the towers and the other places.

watch september clues and type in fake airplaines or fake t.v. footage

[TroyaE117]

Upside down? You really think that by considering the possiblity of hydrogen bombs that day that it will bring you enlightenement?

A hydrogen bomb would have taken half of Manhattan off the map.

What exactly do you mean by "trying to figure out what happened?". You mean a hydrogen bomb? They need to try harder on that one.

[TroyaE117]

Here's another YouTube one to watch. Watch the 40 seconds of it.

I must admit it is not easy to see the squibs and thermite in there...

Termonuclear/Nuclear Bomb Compilation !

It does look like an explosion though. It's a hydrogen bomb. I don't think they come in small packages. Maybe Fetzer has an idea on that one, or King maybe?

[TroyaE117]

Oh it was a hydrogen bomb, well two of them, was it?

I really must have heard it all now.

Did you read this on scholars for 911 truth? Did you?

A hydrogen bomb would have torn half of Manhattan off the map. No doubt these are mini hydrogen bombs, are they?

Fetzer of 911 truth though it might have been a death ray. He never mentioned a hydrogen bomb.

I really am laughing out loud. There is nobody here but I am laughing out loud.

You guys really have lost it. You really have lost it

[Ab4kus]

Those 'ridiculous' explanations are only there because there is RIDICULOUS evidence. Evidence that has been ignored by the official story.

That's what should worry you, not the fact that someone is actually trying to figure out what happend. Sadly your world is upside down.

[truebluestar]

Dear nootpad,

Of course you are correct. We can't prove that nukes were used by our treasonous government, yet. We are only asking the question and hoping to awaken people to the possibility. The one thing we do know, for sure, is that the twin towers and building seven didn't collapse due to fires as the official fairy tale claims. 911 was an inside job and nothing proves that more dramatically than the obvious cover-up and media blackout of contradictory evidence.

Blue Star Media Group.

[petergonefar]

this idea of a mini-nuke that leaves no trace of itself and explodes horizontally instead of vertically seems put together at a harsh and un-researched pace.

[SmokescreenNinjaz]

Are we just gonna sit here and disscuss? Or riot?

[cs579]

wtcnuke*com

nucleardemolition*com

saunalahti*fi/wtc2001/evidence­*htm

youtube*com/watch?v=Hj0vq69jmS­o

[RichardC111165]

Steven Jones has presented good evidence that thermate was used. He found no radioactivity (other than normal background) in the debris. As of today, we have no evidence of micro-nukes. We DO have good evidence for conventional explosives and thermate. IMO, we should stick with the strongest evidence.

[atwitsend]

A physicist critiques

Steven Jones' new paper

by Stephen Phillips, Ph.D

[mike4ty4]

Those flashes look like stuff (metal chunks) glinting in the sunlight -- sorry. That's the problem with this conspiracy claim -- the evidence is *vague*, whereas the evidence for the official story is *clear*. I'd go with the theory supported by the clearest evidence, wouldn't you? And if a nuke had been used underground it would have carved a massive crater and lifted the whole ground up and out. If it was used aboveground it would have leveled the whole area. Neither is observed.

[jingling30]

Excuse me? Glittering metal? All the metal is dull steel. These are light emitting objects, not reflections. This light is being emitted from within the thick pulverized concrete. The official story that this massive explosion that looks like a high energy bomb is a result of a building falling with the only force of gravity acting on. That's not what were seeing. The offical story is fantacy. Not reality. This is now common knowledge.

[mike4ty4]

Those tiny little flashlets could be any sort of reflective material. They are pointlike and very dim -- if they were deep inside the smoke they could not be seen. They'd have to be a whole lot brighter and hence would LIGHT UP THE SMOKE. We don't see that. SORRY!!!!

[mike4ty4]

"Excuse me? Glittering metal? All the metal is dull steel. These are light emitting objects, not reflections. "

No they're reflection. Even the SMOKE as you can see is reflecting sunlight.

[leftysergeant]

The cladding was natural-finished aluminum, in long strips like over-sized HardiPlank You can see pics of it drapped over the side of WTC 5&6 in GZ documents.  Or it could be glass. Not all of it broke in an instant.

[mike4ty4]

"The cladding was natural-finished aluminum, in long strips like over-sized HardiPlank You can see pics of it drapped over the side of WTC 5&6 in GZ documents. Or it could be glass. Not all of it broke in an instant."

That's right -- it's reflections! Also, the sheer piddliness of the flashes compared to a NUKE blast (which ***EVERYONE*** would notice. Just WATCH all the nuke videos here on Youtube!) is a big point against the idea!

[leftysergeant]

The heat would have cooked anyone on the street, you nitwit. Tell the Naudet Borthers that shit and see how they laugh.

[Ab4kus]

Anyone on what street? What radius? And where would you base your numbers on? Hm? You call people nitwits but you go around thinking shit up while assumig a whole list of things without any facts other than the general idea you have from nukes on TV. Btw did you know 100's of cars were burnt/molten inexplicably?

[mike4ty4]

"Anyone on what street? What radius? And where would you base your numbers on? Hm?"

Any of those people near the base of the towers at the very least -- BOOM! They'd be vaporized! Haven't you seen the videos taken near the base of the towers from _on the ground_? We wouldn't have them if a nuke had been used.

[Ab4kus]

And you base that on what?

[mike4ty4]

"And you base that on what? "

That nukes produce a great deal of heat and blast (even "mini" nukes have yields measured in several hundred tons of TNT), that no such thing was ever seen on that day (at the very least the _bottom_ of the towers would have exploded), that people were really standing there taking videos (showing that such heat/blast couldn't have been there), etc.

[Ab4kus]

So you assume you know what nuke has been used, where it's been placed, and what effect it would have in that position. That's a lot of ifs and buts to me.

[mike4ty4]

"So you assume you know what nuke has been used, where it's been placed, and what effect it would have in that position. That's a lot of ifs and buts to me. "

_Any_ nuke produces the effects given, just at different scales. Also, the location stuff is from the video -- I'm using where the video is claiming the nuke is supposed to be located, and it does not have to be exact.

[Ab4kus]

Ah there are the magic words, different scales. It's not impossible to create a nuke with a limited radius that does not fall outside of the buildings.

And what's more is, we don't even know in what radius there were casualties from a supposed blast. All you have are assumptions..

[mike4ty4]

"It's not impossible to create a nuke with a limited radius that does not fall outside of the buildings."

THEORETICALLY, you can, but there are technological considerations that throw a big wrench into this. As one tries to make a nuclear bomb smaller and smaller, it becomes harder and harder to do. Why do you think it's been so hard to develop "mini nukes", anyway? Why not just use conventional explosives?

[mike4ty4]

"The heat would have cooked anyone on the street, you nitwit. Tell the Naudet Borthers that shit and see how they laugh."

That too.

[Ab4kus]

Uhm, so because you hear the word 'nuke' you automatically think the whole neighbourhood would be destroyed? What kind of nonsense is that, you make them as big or as small as you want ofcourse. Just like most bombs.

And clear evidence for the official story? Maybe you should check again... there is none whatsoever. Oh wait yea, the passport, bandana's and fake videostatement.

[mike4ty4]

If you're going to mak the nuke so small why even bother with a nuke? Although THEORETICALLY you can make a real tiny nuke it becomes harder to make the smaller you try to make it. The massive research/development costs required, construction costs, time, etc. would make it simpler to just use a conventional bomb, wouldn't it? And it's real simple to just fly an airplane in.

[Ab4kus]

Theoretically? Micro/Mini nukes are actively being used today so it's not like it's only theoretical.

It sounds overkill just because it's the word "nuke", people automatically think mushroom cloud.

I'm not trying to defend the theory however cause it's not one I am convinced of, it is however a possibility.

[mike4ty4]

Even the "micro" nukes still have yields of over a hundred tons of TNT. The towers would be EXploding not IMploding with one of those.

[Ab4kus]

uhm, have you watched any of the video's lately? They're definately exploding.

[mike4ty4]

That doesn't look like an "explosion", it looks more like a collapse. Explosion means the building blows outwards in all directions (in 3D). There should be a huge outward burst in all directions from the area where the nuke is.

[Ab4kus]

No mike, that does NOT look like a collapse. It's exactly what you describe an explosion would be, the buildings blow outwards in all directions.

How can you not see that?

[mike4ty4]

Look up "explosion" on Youtube, and watch the videos that come up, and compare that with what you see here.

[Ab4kus]

You need to search for explosion on youtube to figure out how a falling building would look? Don't you think you're stretching it at that point? Look up controlled demolitions and see how the building falls down nicely. That's what gravity does. What happend on 9/11, spreading two towers across the city in a fine dust, is what bombs do.

[mike4ty4]

You just said it "exploded". That's why I had you look that up, to show you that it does NOT look like an "explosion".

If you notice also in those videos of controlled demolitions, notice how there are ALSO huge clouds of dust. Sorry but gravity DOES pulverize things into a dust.

[Ab4kus]

Sigh.. so you just look at any explosion and figure "oh, that doesn't look like the WTC towers, case closed!". Don't you understand that what you're looking at in case of the towers is an effect CAUSED by explosions. I didn't think that was so hard to understand?

And yes dust will form with a regular demolition. The problem with 9/11 is that there was ONLY dust, no concrete. In case of WTC7 there was a nice pile of floors and walls.

[mike4ty4]

You said a nuke may have been used, I'm shutting the book on it by showing what a mini nuke would REALLY do versus what was seen.

And with WTC7 having a nice pile of floors and walls doesn't that go AGAINST your "pulverized = demolition" theory???

No concrete at the site? I don't know about you but I thought I saw some. And pulverizing the floors is overkill, ie. waste of money.

[Ab4kus]

#infowars at virtuanet dot org if you want to go deeper into this.

Let me just say this:

You have no idea what a nuke would "really" do just by looking at an atomic bomb explode!

Demolition != pulverization (WTC7), high explosives = pulverization(WTC 1&2).

And no there was NO concrete left worth mentioning.

[mike4ty4]

"Don't you understand that what you're looking at in case of the towers is an effect CAUSED by explosions. I didn't think that was so hard to understand?"

But then you're saying the towers ARE ACTUALLY explodING...

[mike4ty4]

"You need to search for explosion on youtube to figure out how a falling building would look? Don't you think you're stretching it at that point? Look up controlled demolitions and see how the building falls down nicely."

But you said a NUKE may have been used. That DOES equal "explosion"!

[Ab4kus]

My god you're dim...

[mike4ty4]

"My god you're dim... "

NUKES EXPLODE. This is a fact. What else do they do?

And why would one use nukes for a "controlled" demolition, anyway? And why can't we hear the sound of the nuke detonating?

[Ab4kus]

I'm not saying a nuke was used. I find it unlikely. I'm saying you're discrediting it for the wrong reasons.

And I was trying to say that an explosion does not look the same as an explosion inside a building. But for both the towers we see the effects of explosions inside the building.

The rapid expulsion of dustclouds can not be addressed to compressed air.

[mike4ty4]

"The rapid expulsion of dustclouds can not be addressed to compressed air."

You also forget that the dust is moving down to begin with, so when it hits the ground it is going to fan out.

[Ab4kus]

No I'm not talking about it fanning out after it hits the ground I'm talking about debris/smoke flying outwards at high speed during the entire collapse and at the onset.

[mike4ty4]

"No I'm not talking about it fanning out after it hits the ground I'm talking about debris/smoke flying outwards at high speed during the entire collapse and at the onset. "

Where and when is this? You mean that thing everyone calls "squibs"?

[mike4ty4]

"No mike, that does NOT look like a collapse. It's exactly what you describe an explosion would be, the buildings blow outwards in all directions.

How can you not see that? "

Because they don't! They do _not_ "blow out in all directions", they crumble and debris rains over a large area. There's no "exploding" going on -- everything is falling DOWN.

[Ab4kus]

Steel doesn't "fall down" in a 600 feet radius. Nor do skyscrapers turn to dust when they collapse. Nor, for that matter, do they collapse after an hour of small fires where the temperature barely reaches 250°C.

There's no reason for them to start collapsing..

[mike4ty4]

"Steel doesn't "fall down" in a 600 feet radius."

It does if it's spilling off as the top disintegrates. The top is breaking up and falling, and debris falls wherever there isn't anything to hold it up -- which means _down and out_.

"Nor do skyscrapers turn to dust when they collapse."

Have you seen the complete collapse of a skyscraper of this size before? I don't think so. So how do you know this?

[Ab4kus]

Yes, and thanks to gravity, debris falls DOWN, not 600 feet from where it's supposed to be.

And yes, there are numerous tall buildings that have collapsed, you could look at any collapsed anything, and you will see that it will not disintegrate under it's own weight, only an outside force will do that, the size doesn't have anything to do with it.

[gidsum29]

When was the last time you saw a 110 story building get hit by a 300TON plane going 500MPH

with 10,000 gallons of fuel prior to 9/11/01

NEVER, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP..YOU DONT KNOW SHIT!

[Ab4kus]

Laws of physics don't change because an airplane flies into it. If you knew anything about the investigation, you'd know that the planes and fuel had very little to do with the collapse.

Besides, the buildings were build to withstand MULTIPLE airliner impacts.

[dylanbryson]

Empire state building for one?

[Ab4kus]

These dustclouds can be seen on every picture and video btw, so I find it a bit dishonest that you would try to deny that they don't blow out in all directions, as they clearly do.

[mike4ty4]

"These dustclouds can be seen on every picture and video btw, so I find it a bit dishonest that you would try to deny that they don't blow out in all directions, as they clearly do."

Oh now you're talking about the _dust clouds_. I was talking about the big shower of debris that occurs as the buildings were collapsing. The dust clouds are expanding because of the air current set up by the collapse.

[Ab4kus]

I'm talking about the debris as it leaves the buildings at high speed during the onset and the collapse.

How can you miss that when looking at the collapse videos?

[mike4ty4]

"I'm talking about the debris as it leaves the buildings at high speed during the onset and the collapse.

How can you miss that when looking at the collapse videos? "

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. That big "mushroom" or "banana peel" effect as the debris spills all over the place? Or those "squib" things that are seen jetting out a few of the windows?

[Ab4kus]

watch?v=E5_TIrTp7J8

watch?v=gWYxoIHbbZI

watch?v=IX9gdRST6zM

especially this last one, notice how debris and dust is flying outwars at very high speed and volume leading the collapse, this isn't just "peeling" away as you stated. These are the effects of explosions.

[mike4ty4]

So you do mean those squibs, then, as that's the only "high speed" phenomenon I see. BTW, the tower is falling at over 100 MPH. You don't think that's going to create a lot of fast-moving debris? The top of the tower crumbles and begins spilling off. This doesn't look like a blast -- where's all the debris shooting *up* for one?

[Ab4kus]

So the tower went from 0 to 100MPH in a blink of an eye? Right, that's magical occurence #34. And lets ignore the smaller part manages to travel at 100MPH through the bigger part of the tower "sans" resistance. Newton turns in his grave.

And no I'm not talking about "squibs", good point though, cause the explanation given for that one is listed as #16 on my list of magical occurances. The overpressure plunger theory.. never mind that these all rest on assumptions without any proof whatsoever.

[mike4ty4]

"So the tower went from 0 to 100MPH in a blink of an eye?"

No, where are you getting that from? It very clearly starts out slow and accelerates.

[mike4ty4]

"And lets ignore the smaller part manages to travel at 100MPH through the bigger part of the tower "sans" resistance. "

Well, OK, maybe the tower itself actually collapsed slower. The stuff that had fallen out appeared to impact the ground at speeds similar to that. But the collapse of the tower is not finished at that point due to resistance (you can see it still happening as the center of the dust plume is still dropping.).

[Ab4kus]

watch?v=O2e8OlUwnVE

[shrunkensimon]

Thermate was not needed at all. Micronukes could take care of it all... just look at WTC 7 :) The thermate theory is Alex "disinfo" Jones theory, designed to lead you in the wrong direction.

[aeasus]

Thermate to cut the steel and bombs to pulverize everything else makes sense

[fanbutton]

This guy is right on the money! Excellent research...keep truthin!

[genghis6199]

mini nukes. low radiation small device. too easy