skyeagle409 Posted July 2, 2012 #1976 Share Posted July 2, 2012 The Un-debunkable truth [media=] [/media] I guess you didn't know that the video was faked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 2, 2012 #1977 Share Posted July 2, 2012 That's because it was whisked away before anyone could find it. How are you going to whisk away thousands upon thousands and thousands of feet of detonation wire and not draw attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Jones Posted July 2, 2012 #1978 Share Posted July 2, 2012 How are you going to whisk away thousands upon thousands and thousands of feet of detonation wire and not draw attention? Easy, they're the government they can just pay off anyone who sees it. I guess you didn't know that the video was faked! Proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 2, 2012 #1979 Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) Easy, they're the government they can just pay off anyone who sees it. Proof? Not likely at all. Easy, they're the government they can just pay off anyone who sees it. Proof? [media=] [/media]Just consider yourself another gullible victim. Edited July 2, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Jones Posted July 2, 2012 #1980 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Not likely at all. [media=] [/media]Just consider yourself another gullible victim. How do you know that guy wasn't paid by the government to explain that the video showing flashes was faked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 2, 2012 #1981 Share Posted July 2, 2012 How do you know that guy wasn't paid by the government to explain that the video showing flashes was faked? He provided the indicators on the video that proved it was faked, but I guess you didn't notice the indicators so watch the video again and listen to what indicators he is telling you that the video is faked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Jones Posted July 2, 2012 #1982 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Whatever that doesn't prove anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 2, 2012 #1983 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Whatever that doesn't prove anything. It proved that you were mislead because you didn't bother the check the indicators on the video that proved the video was faked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daughter of the Nine Moons Posted July 3, 2012 #1984 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Thread cleaned, everyone stay on topic and cease the ad hom attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted July 14, 2012 #1985 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Depends on a number of things. In the case of the WTC buildings, they suffered from impact damage and fires, and that was all it took. I asked you... Does random damage cause total collapse? Yes or no? And you answered... "Not in the case of the WTC buildings." To sum up your answer - 'no, it does not cause total collapse'. At least, for the WTC buildings, it does not. Thus, you are really saying the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions. If it was not random, as you said, then it means it was planned Case closed. If you can't admit it, that's fine by me. Perhaps you will, someday.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 14, 2012 #1986 Share Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) I asked you... Does random damage cause total collapse? Yes or no? And you answered... "Not in the case of the WTC buildings." To sum up your answer - 'no, it does not cause total collapse'. At least, for the WTC buildings, it does not. Thus, you are really saying the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions. If it was not random, as you said, then it means it was planned Case closed. If you can't admit it, that's fine by me. Perhaps you will, someday.... Sorry, but facts and evidence do not support what you say. To underline my point, post evidence of controlled demolitions regarding the WTC buildings and if you are unable to do so, be prepared for a lasting argument on why you were unable to come up with evidence of explosives, and you must know that I will go into details to point out your flaws because I have seen many explosions during wars, and I saw nothing in the videos that represented the use of explosives. Demolition experts on the scene have said they saw no evidence that explosives were used nor found evidence in the rubble, and they added that their monitors did not detect explosions, however, they detected and recorded the collapse of the WTC buildings, but they did not detect nor record any explosions. It is all very simple; * No evidence of bomb explosions seen on video nor heard on audio recorders * No evidence of explosions on seismic detectors * Demolition experts on the scene confirmed no evidence of explosive materials ( detonation cords, etc. ) found in the WTC rubble * No evidence of bomb explosions found on the steel columns that were examined. * No evidence of thermite cuts found on the steel columns. With no evidence whatsoever that explosives were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, what made you think that explosives were used? Go ahead and post the 9/11 WTC videos and provide evidence of bomb explosions within those videos using the time line reference points. We can then stop the videos at those reference points and look for evidence of bomb explosions, and if there's no evidence to be found, be prepared to explain to us all, the problem of your claim regarding controlled demolitions and the collapse of the WTC buildings. Edited July 14, 2012 by skyeagle409 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noldi400 Posted July 17, 2012 #1987 Share Posted July 17, 2012 and how do you explain the molten metal under all 3 towers? Take tons of very hot steel - doesn't matter how it got hot, fire or absorbed kinetic energy - pile it together, cover it with pulverized concrete and gypsum, and it gets hotter and hotter because of the exothermic property of iron. So if there was molten metal, it would not be a big surprise. Ask any metallurgist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted July 17, 2012 #1988 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I have seen a video of WTC7 on fire before it collapsed so that rules out demolition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted July 17, 2012 #1989 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Take tons of very hot steel - doesn't matter how it got hot, fire or absorbed kinetic energy - pile it together, cover it with pulverized concrete and gypsum, and it gets hotter and hotter because of the exothermic property of iron. So if there was molten metal, it would not be a big surprise. Ask any metallurgist. How does the steel get "very hot?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 17, 2012 #1990 Share Posted July 17, 2012 How does the steel get "very hot?" How about the use of a furnace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noldi400 Posted July 17, 2012 #1991 Share Posted July 17, 2012 How does the steel get "very hot?" Well, there was the fire, although that affected a relatively small part of the structure,, and when that much falling mass comes to a sudden stop a lot of the kinetic energy is converted into heat energy. In what way does the presence of molten metal support the notion of controlled demolition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted July 17, 2012 #1992 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I see the molten steel suggestive of some sort of special process because the metal remained molten for several days. Thermal imaging from satellites showed 3 (as I recall) hot spots. That cannot come from friction or jetfuel. My guess is nuclear devices of the very modern variety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted July 17, 2012 #1993 Share Posted July 17, 2012 If that was the case all of New York, New Jersey and other nearby states would of been contaminated by now. Am i right that nuclear does not make fires? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 17, 2012 #1994 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I see the molten steel suggestive of some sort of special process because the metal remained molten for several days. Thermal imaging from satellites showed 3 (as I recall) hot spots. That cannot come from friction or jetfuel. My guess is nuclear devices of the very modern variety. In that case, there would have been no New York left afterward and contamination would have been widespread. Tell us, what is the temperature of a nuclear device at detonation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted July 17, 2012 #1995 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Sky I got out of the Army in 1971. Even in those old days there was such a thing as a 'tactical' (as opposed to strategic) nuclear weapon. Small, perhaps "suitcase" sized low-yield nuclear weapons. My guess is that we have done serious weapons development since 1971. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 17, 2012 #1996 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Sky I got out of the Army in 1971. Even in those old days there was such a thing as a 'tactical' (as opposed to strategic) nuclear weapon. Small, perhaps "suitcase" sized low-yield nuclear weapons. My guess is that we have done serious weapons development since 1971. If you were familiar with tactical nukes, then why did you suggest that a nuke could have been responsible? Anyone who is familiar with nukes would have known there was no way a nuke was detonated inside the WTC building. Not only have you shown a lack of knowledge on aviation issues, but a lack of knowledge of military weaponry as well. Once again, what is the temperature created by a nuclear weapon at detonation? Edited July 17, 2012 by skyeagle409 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted July 17, 2012 #1997 Share Posted July 17, 2012 You still need to contain nuclear radiation no matter who big it is, it still would of covered a large area. If small area then you looking at radiation that is harmless. Same with any chemical or solid compound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted July 18, 2012 #1998 Share Posted July 18, 2012 In 1945 nuclear weapons were quite large and primitive, airplanes could not go through the sound barrier, and Low Earth Orbit was only a theory. My, my, what advances in technology we have seen in our lifetimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted July 18, 2012 #1999 Share Posted July 18, 2012 You do not need to be in the military to know about Nuclear power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted July 18, 2012 #2000 Share Posted July 18, 2012 In 1945 nuclear weapons were quite large and primitive,.... And yet, thousands of people died of radiation poisoning. Environmental Consequences of Nuclear Weapons: • Radioactive materials released from the testing or detonation of nuclear weapons remain in the ecosystem for thousands of years; • Drinking radioactive contaminated water over a long period of time is closely linked to high cancer rates; • Nuclear radiation, which results from the neutrons and gamma rays associated with fission, is lethal in high doses, and has many lingering effects, including increased cancer rates and organ damage. In addition to the 200,000 estimated deaths from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, thousands of other civilians developed cancer and other diseases form the high levels of radiation. My, my, what advances in technology we have seen in our lifetimes. In other words, you haven't a clue about how a nuclear bomb works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now