Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

America Nuked 9/11


poppet

Recommended Posts

I wonder why anyone would waste money to build a nuke that can be substituted with conventional explosives.

I brought that up a while ago...

The most ludicrous aspect of the whole "no fallout nuke" (one of the many) is this: Why would anyone go to all the trouble to develop a nuke that leaves no or virtually no traces of its nuclearness when there are PLENTY of conventional explosives that would do the trick just nicely.

Certain CT's like to pretend they actually understand the precept and invoke Occam's Razor without realizing cuts both ways. The same thing that they think proves their point actually destroys it.

No one has bothered to address that yet. I guess its more fun for BR, Poppet and DIIR to live in the safe little fantasy world they've created.

Cz

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The obvious failure in that article is from the false premise stemming from this:

Consider their example. What is the Verinage method? It is controlled demolition! So they are using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory!! This is obviously self-refuting. In order for them to have a case, it would seem to me that they would have to provide examples of fire alone initiating specific and simultaneous structural failure in order to cause a symmetrical collapse that resemble anything like the WTC buildings.

Well of course the verinage demolition is controlled demolition. Nobody refutes that point.

The reason why the verinage is important is because it debunks the theory that a smaller falling upper mass doesn't have enough energy to continue propagating collapse unless explosives are involved.

The author of the article knows this, and it is obvious he is either feigning ignorance or putting his own personal spins. Regardless, the article is badly written anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what's even more important?

Not coming up with scenarios that require the known laws of Physics to change.

That is precisely what you do Tiggs, advancing a theory that claims office furniture fires and gravity could propel huge structural pieces outwards hundreds of feet with sufficient energy to impale nearby buildings. And that those same fires could create molten metal and keep it that way for 3 months.

The preponderance of the evidence, as we both know, contradicts your theory at every turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, was a noise actually made?

If the evidence for nuclear events are all around you but you are unable to see it, does that mean the evidence really doesn't exist, or just that you are afflicted with cognitive dissonance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't suppose that being able to do away with Gamma radiation and radioactive Fallout that would normally make a place where a Nuclear blast had occurred off-limits to Humans for years and years, and that also managed to avoid doing significant lasting damage to electronic devices in the vicinity, isn't rewriting the laws of psychics but is just the kind of improvements they'd probably have been able to do by now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is precisely what you do Tiggs, advancing a theory that claims office furniture fires and gravity could propel huge structural pieces outwards hundreds of feet with sufficient energy to impale nearby buildings. And that those same fires could create molten metal and keep it that way for 3 months.

The preponderance of the evidence, as we both know, contradicts your theory at every turn.

How about you stop pretending to know what I know?

Instead - why don't you go and get an unopened bag of chips and stamp on them. Once you've done that, feel free to come back and tell us all how it's impossible that the vertical force you've just applied managed to propel those chips sideways out of the packet, all over your kitchen floor. Come back and tell us how EvilGuv™ planted nuclear explosives in your chip packet.

Also, go and do some research on what a furnace is, and how they all have that strange tendency to burn without nuclear ignition.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you deny that the NYC radio system was reported as "not working" in the MSM since Day One, then of course there was no EMP.

Trouble is, that view does not really comport with reality.

The loss of the antennas which was on top of the WTC is the cause. How daft can a truther be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really respect his analytical skills in certain areas, but I still love him and I understand the dynamics of his cognitive dissonance.

It seems that you might resent your brothers ability to think clearly.

I knew long before Prager's book that it was an inside job and a False Flag operation of epic proportions.

And all you do is twist the facts and spouting lies to bend things to your preconceived notion.

We all knew that. Thanks for telling us that you are aware of this as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, was a noise actually made?

If the evidence for nuclear events are all around you but you are unable to see it, does that mean the evidence really doesn't exist, or just that you are afflicted with cognitive dissonance?

This is not what happened. Equipment and observers were there and there was no nuke.

What we do have is someone unable to see that there was a huge and obvious antenna on top of a building that once destroyed was no longer able to transmit.

That is about as head-in-sand a truther can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, was a noise actually made?

If the evidence for nuclear events are all around you but you are unable to see it, does that mean the evidence really doesn't exist, or just that you are afflicted with cognitive dissonance?

You have no evidence of the actual physical consequences of a nuclear explosion.

In short - the unavoidable evidence that must be there, in order for a nuclear explosion to have occurred - isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why anyone would waste money to build a nuke that can be substituted with conventional explosives.

Waste? The arms industry is bread and butter to the economy. It's a good question but that means more questions are asked, like who did it, why and what for. I think this is also a non question but more looking at the facts without any influences from the media and popular thinking, it raises more questions. The twin towers collapse is embedded in mystery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why anyone would waste money to build a nuke that can be substituted with conventional explosives.

that is a fair question; why bother going to all the incredible expense and effort and all the hazards associated with constructing something that doesn't really do any more than you could with ordinary explosives? The whole point of having a Nuke that small that you could plant discreetly without anyone knowing would be that it would be so much more destructive than regular explosives; not that it would make less, an those who put forward this theory seem to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't suppose that being able to do away with Gamma radiation and radioactive Fallout that would normally make a place where a Nuclear blast had occurred off-limits to Humans for years and years, and that also managed to avoid doing significant lasting damage to electronic devices in the vicinity, isn't rewriting the laws of psychics but is just the kind of improvements they'd probably have been able to do by now?

You keep kidding yourself into thinking that 60 years of government R&D has brought no changes. You keep judging modern events by 1945 standards, and that is poor reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tiggs

The only way I know you, or any other poster, is by your posts. That is, I don't "know what you know" and have never claimed to. I know only what you post, and I must admit your example of potato chips being compared to the dynamics of what happened at WTC sets a new standard for hilarity. :tsu:

The evidence is ample for a nuclear event there. You may deny it, or be unable to perceive it, but it's all over the place.

It seems you keep forgetting that burning office furniture and gravity are unable to do what the facts present. Or, maybe you're just kidding yourself, I don't know.

Edited by Babe Ruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence is ample for a nuclear event there. You may deny it, or be unable to perceive it, but it's all over the place.

Let's take a look.

911-seismograph-1.jpg

911-seismograph-2.jpg

No evidence there of any bomb explosions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UJquAvBmjw

No evidence of bomb explosions in that video either, and you will notice that electronics continued to work normally after the WTC building collapsed. Verdict: No EMP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waste? The arms industry is bread and butter to the economy. It's a good question but that means more questions are asked, like who did it, why and what for. I think this is also a non question but more looking at the facts without any influences from the media and popular thinking, it raises more questions. The twin towers collapse is embedded in mystery.

Two months ago I would have agreed with you completely.

After reading Prager's book, I would say that all of the shroud of mystery regarding how the towers were actually brought down has been cleared away. For me, all the important questions have been answered.

Whodunnit and why? Don't know and don't really care that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the evidence for nuclear events are all around you but you are unable to see it, does that mean the evidence really doesn't exist, or just that you are afflicted with cognitive dissonance?

Let's take another look.

No evidence of any bomb explosion as WTC2 collapsed. In other words, you must be referring nuclear detonation in China or in Russian, not at ground zero, because evidence has been shown that no bomb detonation of any kind occurred at ground zero, which simply means you have zero evidence of a nuclear detonation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two months ago I would have agreed with you completely.

You have a habit of changing with the wind. What happened to your thermite claim?

After reading Prager's book, I would say that all of the shroud of mystery regarding how the towers were actually brought down has been cleared away.

Prager wrote a book of fiction that you have used as a reference.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep kidding yourself into thinking that 60 years of government R&D has brought no changes. You keep judging modern events by 1945 standards, and that is poor reasoning.

As others have noted, you are talking of taking a huge step backwards toward conventional explosives, which doesn't make any sense at all. I don't think you realize just how silly you sound.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep kidding yourself into thinking that 60 years of government R&D has brought no changes. You keep judging modern events by 1945 standards, and that is poor reasoning.

But there'd hardly be any point developing Nukes that were no more destructive than conventional explosives, is the point. What would be the advantage? They'd be incredibly expensive and hazardous to produce and handle, and it would be so much easier to use conventional Explosives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pound for pound, I suspect nuclear devices are superior to conventional.

Expensive? Nothing is too good for the US military, and budget considerations come last. Our military has $1500 commode seats. On a related note, it is not certain that these were US weapons. It so happens that there are other countries that do nuclear research and are in possession of nuclear devices.

No more hazardous to handle than other fuzed weapons, would be my guess. I was a medic, not a weapons expert.

Why would they do it? Probably for the same reason a dog licks his privates--because he can. Moreover, the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

A cynical view perhaps, but fairly well grounded in human behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pound for pound, I suspect nuclear devices are superior to conventional.

Then, it would be silly to develop very expensive nukes to mimic very cheap conventional explosives.

Expensive? Nothing is too good for the US military, and budget considerations come last.

Considering the Air Force has now shut down a number of squadrons and cut back flying hours and training and in some cases, squadrons are financially broke, I don't think so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way I know you, or any other poster, is by your posts. That is, I don't "know what you know" and have never claimed to. I know only what you post, and I must admit your example of potato chips being compared to the dynamics of what happened at WTC sets a new standard for hilarity. :tsu:

You either understand the concept of what happens to a volume of air subject to sudden pressure, or you don't.

You either understand that the main force with which debris is ejected from a building during collapse is due to the air being evacuated through the weakest point under pressure (normally the windows) - or you don't.

The evidence is ample for a nuclear event there. You may deny it, or be unable to perceive it, but it's all over the place.

Have you considered applying for a full time job with the Bush Administration's WMD detection team in Iraq?

It seems you keep forgetting that burning office furniture and gravity are unable to do what the facts present.

It seems you keep making assertions that you can't prove.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pound for pound, I suspect nuclear devices are superior to conventional.

Can't call it a nuke without the tell tale signs of a nuke. PERIOD. End of story.

This is what most of us is trying to beat into your head, which unfortunately seems borderline impossible.

Expensive? Nothing is too good for the US military, and budget considerations come last. Our military has $1500 commode seats.

Bringing up that point doesn't bode well for your argument considering the many budget cutbacks that has been happening.

On a related note, it is not certain that these were US weapons. It so happens that there are other countries that do nuclear research and are in possession of nuclear devices.

Irrelevant only because you fail to show conclusive data that other countries were involved.

Why do you continue on taking a position of supposition? Is it because its far easier for you to fall back on it rather than actually say you were wrong to begin with?

No more hazardous to handle than other fuzed weapons, would be my guess. I was a medic, not a weapons expert.

Medic? Funny, considering you made a claim that jet fuel and fire cannot melt human skin.

Why would they do it? Probably for the same reason a dog licks his privates--because he can. Moreover, the only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

A cynical view perhaps, but fairly well grounded in human behavior.

Funny, since so far you have yet to provide proof of nukes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.