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

Where is your evidence the perpetrators were al-qaida and came from a tewowist stronghold in Afghanistan? What evidence do you have that these men were Muslim? What evidence do you have of them using box cutters to frighten 100+ people onto submission?

What does any of that have to do with Nukes at WTC?

Did you want to start another thread about your questions or is your intention to hijack this one?

Create a new thread and I will respond.

To be quite honest, I am tired of being part of thread derailments with BR.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No re-investigation is possible, it has been very thoroughly attempted, but the media derails further support by alienating it. Hell when Obama took office Jesse Ventura and Charlie Sheen (lol) both asked him to his face what he thought about re opening a investigation and were basically laughed at. It has nothing to do with his term is basically what he said.

What really gets me is the video of the reporter being decapitated by a knife was available for all to see for almost a year, yet we can't see the full video's of the hijacking/pentagon crash because it's disrespectful to the victims.

As for a nuclear device, I doubt it. Have a good night yall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No re-investigation is possible, it has been very thoroughly attempted, but the media derails further support by alienating it. Hell when Obama took office Jesse Ventura and Charlie Sheen (lol) both asked him to his face what he thought about re opening a investigation and were basically laughed at. It has nothing to do with his term is basically what he said.

I want you to provide the actual quote.

What really gets me is the video of the reporter being decapitated by a knife was available for all to see for almost a year, yet we can't see the full video's of the hijacking/pentagon crash because it's disrespectful to the victims.

Because the video was sent to AL Jazeera (sp?) And it was that media company that put it on for all to see. Not to mention it was placed on the internet.

As far as the Pentagon videos, who says no video of the crash is available, did you not see the parking lot camera video?

As for a nuclear device, I doubt it. Have a good night yall.

Well, at least this was on topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Spoon wrote:

I think you have a mental condition, the amount of out of context quotations and the relentless barrage of here-say evidence (Ironically the same style of evidence you ridicule 20 hours a day every day) leads me to believe you have a slight aneurism, pulsing ever closer. Huehuehue

After 20 years, where is the evidence of a government 911 conspiracy? No evidence was ever found by the major news organizations after all of these years. I have made a career in aviation for well over 40, so I have the experience to determine when 911 conspiracy folks are trying to pull a fast one or simply posting out of shear ignorance.

My Wing commander was in the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77 and I was once sent TDY to Andrews AFB, which is where one unit was involved after the 911 attack. That unit was NOT prepared nor familiar with NORAD protocol for conducting air-to-air intercepts, yet 911 conspiracy folks concocted false stories regarding that unit and the unit at Langley AFB , and that is one reason of many as to why I have stated for the record that claims of 911 conspiracy folks are ignorant-based. In addition, the Air Force did not receive authorization to shoot down anything until after United 93 crashed at Shanksville, and even then, there were commanders who refused to forward the shootdown orders to their pilots.

The fear of accidently shooting down an innocent airliner was real and no one was really prepared for the consequences, but the 911 conspiracy folks don't think of such things, so instead, they concoct unfounded conspiracy theories.

The funny thing is, there is absolutely zero chance to prove or disprove anything here.

False! When I first read about a so-called modified pod on United 175, I took a closer look and noticed the 911 CT folks were misidentifying aerodynamic fairing and MLG doors , which are standard on all B-767s. One thing that really amazed me is that one 911 conspiracy person actually misidentified the paint scheme on the lower forward fuselage of United 175 as a pod, so I had to find a photo of the lower fuselage of another United B-767 to show a clearer detailed of the paint scheme and afterward, I no longer heard from him. It goes to show that 911 CT folks are not interested in doing homework, or doing it properly when they do.

Did you really think that United Airlines would have grounded its B-767 for many months just so the aircraft could have been modified to carry an explosive-laden pod?

You all are spouting here-say evidence and quoting minority's of experts whom have opposite ends of the same table.

The 911 CT folks have proven to me they are outside of the loop of reality. For an example, they've claimed that United 93 did not crash at Shanksville, but landed at Cleveland Airport, but upon closer examination, it was determined they actually confused Delta 1989, a B-767 as United 93, which was a B-757. To further add, the 911 CT folks confused scientist from a KC-135 as passengers of United 93. That doesn't say much about where 911 CT folks are coming from.

There is no conclusion such as 'Yes there is reasonable doubt, I would support a re-investigation'.

There is a conclusion! Your problem is, you visit too many of the conspiracy websites whose members don't know anymore about the 911 facts and evidence than you.

pen a poll, 'I support a re-investigation',...

Why waste money for a re-investigation? As far as nukes are concerned, some 911 CT folks have taken their silliness to a whole new level.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Spoon wrote:

Where is your evidence the perpetrators were al-qaida and came from a tewowist stronghold in Afghanistan? What evidence do you have that these men were Muslim? What evidence do you have of them using box cutters to frighten 100+ people onto submission?

Why don't you ask the terrorist?

Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

http://www.pbs.org/n...n_10-29-04.html

http://www.foxnews.c...ibility-for-11/

994_martyr_videos_2050081722-8644.jpg

hijackermartyrvideos%20al%20jazeera_2050081722-40641.jpg

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/30/breaking-times-of-london-obtains-mohammed-atta-martyrdom-video/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is, there is absolutely zero chance to prove or disprove anything here. You all are spouting here-say evidence and quoting minority's of experts whom have opposite ends of the same table. There is no conclusion such as 'Yes there is reasonable doubt, I would support a re-investigation'. So no I would not like to battle spameagle in a war of ctrl-v, or you for that matter. Open a poll, 'I support a re-investigation', or 'No I do not support a re-investigation' let's settle this XD.

Yes, there is. Reasonable doubt, I mean, for the Nuke theory, which is what this thread is about. There's very reasonable doubt, and plenty of grounds for it. This thread is (or is supposed to be) about the theory that the WTC was brought down by a nuclear device, not the whole interminable question of 9/11 altogether.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go again: Do not make this discussion personal. Critique the subject...not one another.

Just so everyone knows, it's considered a sign of extreme weakness (in a debate) when someone goes after another personally...means they can't support their argument in any constructive fashion.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

As it's been nearly two years since first starting this thread ,i came across this thought provoking article that answers many questions relating to the nuclear theroy .

VT editor Jeff Smith, at Ground Zero on 9/12/2001 investigating the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center, as a team leader on the Able Danger crew with FBI Special Agent Mike Smith, takes us to task on where we have gone and on the explosive material soon to be released.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/12/31/jeff-smith-on-the-upcoming-able-danger-leak/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it's been nearly two years since first starting this thread ,i came across this thought provoking article that answers many questions relating to the nuclear theroy .

VT editor Jeff Smith, at Ground Zero on 9/12/2001 investigating the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center, as a team leader on the Able Danger crew with FBI Special Agent Mike Smith, takes us to task on where we have gone and on the explosive material soon to be released.

http://www.veteranst...le-danger-leak/

If it was a dirty bomb, where are the tens of thousands of radiation victims? EMP indications/impacts? Residual radiation everywhere?

Nukes have very distinct signatures whether detonated above or below ground, and leave unmistakable evidence. And rusted out hulks of burned out cars isn't it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poppy! You're back! I thought maybe the MIB had disappeared you.

And with more of the comedy stylings of jeff smith. This one really made my day:

"The particles of barium, zinc, and lead, elements that never should have turned up in Lower Manhattan"

Right, zinc and lead. Two of the most common industrial heavy metal contaminants. But barium? Gosh, how could something like that have possibly wound up in a modern urban highrise?

http://www.bariumblues.com/barium_.htm

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it's been nearly two years since first starting this thread ,i came across this thought provoking article that answers many questions relating to the nuclear theroy .

VT editor Jeff Smith, at Ground Zero on 9/12/2001 investigating the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center, as a team leader on the Able Danger crew with FBI Special Agent Mike Smith, takes us to task on where we have gone and on the explosive material soon to be released.

http://www.veteranst...le-danger-leak/

Considering that electricity continued to flow and computers, vehicles, cameras and other electronic devices continued to work as the WTC buildings collapsed, we can rule out a nuclear detonation in New York City. In other words, no EMP that would have been associated with a nuclear detonation.

Check out those radiation-proof suits that workers were wearing at ground zero.

SEPT.-11TH-PHOTOS-4931.jpg

fireman.jpg

Now, let's look at what the Japanese wear in contaminated areas..

fukushima-workers.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it's been nearly two years since first starting this thread ,i came across this thought provoking article that answers many questions relating to the nuclear theroy .

VT editor Jeff Smith, at Ground Zero on 9/12/2001 investigating the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center, as a team leader on the Able Danger crew with FBI Special Agent Mike Smith, takes us to task on where we have gone and on the explosive material soon to be released.

http://www.veteranst...le-danger-leak/

As it's been nearly two years since first starting this thread ,i came across this thought provoking article that answers many questions relating to the nuclear theroy .

VT editor Jeff Smith, at Ground Zero on 9/12/2001 investigating the nuclear demolition of the World Trade Center, as a team leader on the Able Danger crew with FBI Special Agent Mike Smith, takes us to task on where we have gone and on the explosive material soon to be released.

http://www.veteranst...le-danger-leak/

It seems that you are unaware of the rest of the story relating to VT.

VETERANS TODAY IS DISINFO

vtgetsnukes.jpg?w=150

Veterans Today used to be a great source for information but over the last several years, they have really changed their position on 9/11 and now many suspect them of infiltration and deliberately spreading disinformation into the movement. Founder Gordon Duff and others like James Fetzer, Dmitri Khalezov, Donald Fox, and Jeff Prager are just a few editors at Veterans Today that strongly support that “Mini Nukes” brought down the towers after the “Holograms” hit them.

Veterans Today are strongly against the 2300+ Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and do not agree with the theory of controlled demolition theory via Nano Thermite and Explosives. Which has been scientifically proven and is the general consensus within the Truth Movement.

Gordon Duff (Senior Editor at VT) has publicly admitted that 40% of everything he publishes on Veterans Today is “patently false”. My question is how can people still consider VT to be a credible source when the founder himself admits to spreading false information? Ever since James Fetzer joined VT, it has gone to the sh**ts and my new slogan for Veterans Today is “Mini Nukes and Jews”.

http://kendoc911.wordpress.com/disinfotrolls/veterans-today-is-disinfo/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi Oniomancer

you forgot to mention stontium which is a common product of nuclear explosions.

http://education.jla...tal/ele038.html

happy new year sky i see your still clinging to the belief that a small fire next to core column 79 on the 12th floor could cause a 47 story building to colaspe in under 10 seconds with the first 100 feet moving at free fall speed which has now been admitted to by those clowns at NIST. c'mon really .....................!!! buildings do not fall down by themselves. period .and please find me a new york fire fighter who has ever been asked to pull a building ,fire fighters put fires out and rescue cats from trees there not in the business of pulling building despite what lucky larry will tell you.

https://www.youtube....pLp-X0ws[/media[/url'>]

it would seem that i'm not the only one who believes that this event had a nuclear signiture .

http://www.sott.net/...e-Nuked-on-9-11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh lord.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and please find me a new york fire fighter who has ever been asked to pull a building ,fire fighters put fires out and rescue cats from trees there not in the business of pulling building despite what lucky larry will tell you..

Er, that is a conspiracy claim that you are debunking there, nothing to do with the "official story".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi Oniomancer

you forgot to mention stontium which is a common product of nuclear explosions.

Guess what a common source of both barium and strontium is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium#Applications

.and please find me a new york fire fighter who has ever been asked to pull a building ,fire fighters put fires out and rescue cats from trees there not in the business of pulling building despite what lucky larry will tell you.

Funny, I've been thinking the exact same thing about explosions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They said ,Pull the Firefighters ! Not the building. Looks like its going to be another Long year 2016 !

THats right Im skipping 2015 I gotz to Work !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They said ,Pull the Firefighters ! Not the building. Looks like its going to be another Long year 2016 !

THats right Im skipping 2015 I gotz to Work !

thats very funny you seem to have replaced the word "it" with two words "the firefighters" here have another listen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats very funny you seem to have replaced the word "it" with two words "the firefighters" here have another listen.

How about meaning pull the firefighting operation? That's an "it", and as you said in your earlier post, who would ask the firefighters to pull a building?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats very funny you seem to have replaced the word "it" with two words "the firefighters" here have another listen.

Larry Silverstein meant to pull firefighters out of WTC 7 and he did not have the authority to order the demolition of WTC 7. In addition, "pull it" does not refer to explosive demolition in the demolition industry. Just thought that you would like to know that.

.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats very funny you seem to have replaced the word "it" with two words "the firefighters" here have another listen.

That's funny that you think "pull" means explosive demolition when it is used to actually pull the building over with cables. If he said "shoot it" then you'd have a point.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050327052408/http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm#222

Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."

Here's a list of 306 demolition projects by Dykon Blasting Corp.

http://www.dykon-blasting.com/History/DemoJobList.htm

Not a single "Pull" in any of them.

Also funny that Silverstein was supposedly involved when he bought less insurance than recommended and had to be talked UP to that amount.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

But funniest is the idea that the fire department would have to be involved in the conspiracy. He was talking to the fire chief after all. When do firemen make a decision to implode a building?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi Oniomancer

you forgot to mention stontium which is a common product of nuclear explosions.

http://education.jla...tal/ele038.html

EMP is common in nuclear detonations and yet computers and other electronic devices continued to work without failure. Damaging shock waves, mushroom clouds, noise, temperatures in the range of millions of degrees, a blinding flash, huge craters, and yet, nothing there that indicated a nuclear detonation at ground zero because that story was a hoax.

happy new year sky i see your still clinging to the belief that a small fire next to core column 79 on the 12th floor could cause a 47 story building to colaspe in under 10 seconds with the first 100 feet moving at free fall speed...

Happy New Year, and let's start the new year on the right foot and look what fire did to this piece of steel.

horseshoe_steel.jpgo/.

Now, examine this photo and tell us why the WTC building is not falling at free fall speed.

site1085-20120628-111320.jpg

Are there dust plumes and debris falling faster than the collapse of the building itself? Yes, or no.

buildings do not fall down by themselves. period .

Let's go to Mexico City where a 21-story steel frame building collapsed during an earthquake.

Earthquake Damage in Mexico City, Mexico, September 19, 1985

Totally Collapsed 21-Story Steel Frame Office Building

64700318.jpg

Total collapse of 21-story steel frame office building. Note building standing in background. Many tall concrete structures whose designs met the requirements of the building code performed well. When the magnitude and duration of the quake are considered, the performance as a whole of the one million structures in the city was very good.

http://911research.w...AA_mexico1.html

.and please find me a new york fire fighter who has ever been asked to pull a building ,...

Firefighters do not pull down buildings.

...fire fighters put fires out and rescue cats from trees there not in the business of pulling building despite what lucky larry will tell you.

Now, for the rest of the story.

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything.

So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess."

- Lieutenant William Ryan

----------------------------------------------------------------

A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on.So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

----------------------------------------------------------------

We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires.
Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
"

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

...it would seem that i'm not the only one who believes that this event had a nuclear signiture .

A nuke would have destroyed ground zero and the buildings surrounding the location. You might want to read the following message.

The Dimitri Khalezov "WTC was nuked" hoax

For years, various disinformation agents have been attempting to sabotage the 9/11 truth movement with claims that "mini-nukes" or "nuclear devices" were used to demolish the World Trade Center.

http://www.takeourwo...ukeddisinfo.htm

Edited by skyeagle409
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviousman

What you cannot understand, it seems, is the ability that some of us have to remain NEUTRAL on any given question. That is, not commit to either side.

I do not know and cannot say with certainty that a nuclear device was used there, but it is obvious that SOMETHING special happened, and the simple factual evidence for that is that structural steel was in a molten state for more than a month. Jetfuel and gravity, and phone books and office furniture CANNOT do that.

It seems a likely candidate for such an energy requirement would be a nuclear device or two.

Open-minded critical analysis OBVIOUSMAN, that's all. The consideration of all possibilities. You should try it sometime. :tu:

OHHH! So its more than one one nuke now.

You two are lunatics and your criticisms of skyeagle are

INVALID !

Edited by back to earth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about meaning pull the firefighting operation? That's an "it", and as you said in your earlier post, who would ask the firefighters to pull a building?

The same people who would ask to pull our legs ;)

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.