911 Eyewitness - Intense heat and bright flashes indicate nu

The aftermath of the twin towers demolition reveals a heat source which is not even addressed by the official 911 Commission's report. Video tape shows bright explosive flashes. Nearby cars are turned into charred wrecks but not crushed by falling debris. A military expert in Finland concludes that small nuclear devices were involved in the destruction of the twin towers.
DVD available at:
http://www.911eyewitness.com

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 911
• conspiracy
• cover-up
• science
• controlled_demolition
• 911_truth
• loose_change
• 911_eyewitness
• government_lies
• treason
• wtc

[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.

[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

[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!!

[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 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]

@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.

[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!

[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?

[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 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

[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?

[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]

@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!