• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NUKES at the WTC[W:20]

zyzygy said:
How were these huge amounts of explosives planted with nobody noticing? Why fly planes into the towers? Give us your full alternative 911 theory.
Click to expand...

Ok the Space Vamps had targeted the Twin towers because it was a base of operations for the Lizard men. As we all know the Space Vamps and Lizard men never operate directly, they use their surrogates. The Zionists who were actually controlling the WTC but had it defended by the NWO got wind of the plot from the Freemasons who work for the Illuminati (they had infiltrated them long ago). So the Space Vamp plane was to use the fake terrorist attack to take out the twin towers, the Pentagon (NWO controlled) and blame it on Al Qaeda. You see there is certain crystals you can only find in Afghanistan that are very necessary to the Lizard Men (how exactly? I do not know I am not privy to such classified info). Thus they hoped to completely take over the earth by removing all the powerbases of the Lizard Men. So they used their advanced technology to place holograms over their ships to look like jet liners (note these ships are piloted by the illuminati, who have a secret base that they have conned humanity into thinking is actually the moon). Well the Zionists got involved and through the diligent effort of their NWO stooges managed to damage one of the ships attacking the WTC. Hence the fuzzy ball videos. And destroy the other before it could take out the Pentagon. UA 93 was actually hijacked by terrorists and crashed when the passengers tried to take back the plane in a very unlikely coincidence. But hey s*** happens. Now they Illuminati ships used nuclear thermite beams to demolish the twin towers then the Zionists used that as an excuse to take out WTC7 for the insurance, using mini nukes of course. Now the space Vamps still control the govt the Lizard men still control the Pentagon and they are actively fighting in Afghanistan for control of the crystals. The fate of the world is still up in the air
 
This study by Professor Hulsey isn't theory, it is scientific fact. A building cannot fall at free fall speed without explosives removing the underlying structure. NIST's own Shyam Sunder stated that himself, thereby admitting that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

The molten and vaporized steel that was found at WTC means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of the three towers.

Jet fuel and office furnishings - maximum 1,800F Actual WTCs 1 & 2 fires max 1,400F

Melting point of steel 2,800F Vaporizing point of steel 4,800+F
 
Deuce said:
Why would you say that? You can't even see the buildings through the dust cloud.
Click to expand...

I've spent a fair time in helicopters, and that view in the picture is one I relate to. You can see so much more from a helicopter or an airplane or a drone.
 
camlok said:
This study by Professor Hulsey isn't theory, it is scientific fact. A building cannot fall at free fall speed without explosives removing the underlying structure. NIST's own Shyam Sunder stated that himself, thereby admitting that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

The molten and vaporized steel that was found at WTC means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of the three towers.

Jet fuel and office furnishings - maximum 1,800F Actual WTCs 1 & 2 fires max 1,400F

Melting point of steel 2,800F Vaporizing point of steel 4,800+F
Click to expand...

I missed the bit about your full alternative theory.
 
camlok said:
The huge pyroclastic dust clouds
Click to expand...
Let me stop you right there: that was not a pyroclastic dust cloud. You don't know what that word means.
 
camlok said:
This study by Professor Hulsey isn't theory, it is scientific fact. A building cannot fall at free fall speed
Click to expand...
Gonna have to stop you there again. The towers did not fall at freefall speed. This is like 6th grade level math here. You were told the towers fell at freefall speed. By someone with an agenda. And you believed that someone, so you never actually went to check on this supposed fact. Watch the video, time the collapse, do the math. The towers took significantly longer than freefall speed.
The molten and vaporized steel that was found at WTC means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of the three towers.
Click to expand...
Vaporized steel? Is this about that "nanoparticle" thing? That phenomenon is found in all fires. You don't even have to melt steel to get those, you can get it from a campfire.

Jet fuel and office furnishings - maximum 1,800F Actual WTCs 1 & 2 fires max 1,400F

Melting point of steel 2,800F Vaporizing point of steel 4,800+F
Click to expand...
People made steel weapons in the middle ages and they did not have access to jet fuel. The idea that fire cannot possibly weaken steel enough to collapse is ludicrous.

So, that's several false bits of information I have pointed out to you. You are basing your perception of the event on false information. A reasonable person would reassess that perception.
 
The towers did not fall at freefall speed.
Click to expand...

oh, really? Give me some proof of that then! So far you didn't, cause you couldnt?
 
Pin dÁr said:
oh, really? Give me some proof of that then! So far you didn't, cause you couldnt?
Click to expand...

Sure.

Let's start with the math:

At freefall acceleration, falling 1368 feet requires ~9.2 seconds.
Do you agree?
 
Thoreau72 said:
I've spent a fair time in helicopters, and that view in the picture is one I relate to. You can see so much more from a helicopter or an airplane or a drone.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm aware that the image in question was from above. Did you really think that was what my question was regarding?

What part of that image makes you think fire-induced collapse is impossible? Or are you going to just dodge again?
 
Additional side question:

In a controlled demolition, does one destroy the inner core of a structure last?
 
Deuce said:
Let me stop you right there: that was not a pyroclastic dust cloud. You don't know what that word means.
Click to expand...

No, that wouldn't be scientific to stop there. You have to address the 220 acres of steel reinforced concrete that was attached to the floor pans with multiple shear studs. How did, according to the official conspiracy theory, a gravity collapse get enough energy to blow up all this concrete into micron size dust particles? And crush all those floors of gigantic steel columns, all while accelerating. That goes against Newton's Third Law.

Why would NIST, the well funded US scientific research body, stop their study of the collapse of the twin towers right at collapse initiation?
 
Deuce said:
Gonna have to stop you there again. The towers did not fall at freefall speed. This is like 6th grade level math here. You were told the towers fell at freefall speed. By someone with an agenda. And you believed that someone, so you never actually went to check on this supposed fact. Watch the video, time the collapse, do the math. The towers took significantly longer than freefall speed.
Click to expand...

If we are going to discuss this you have to have a modicum of knowledge to do so. Professor Hulsey's study had nothing to do with the twin towers. I didn't say anything about the twin towers and the speed of their fall, yet.

WTC7 fell at free fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds, 105 feet, 8 floors.
 
Deuce said:
camlok: The molten and vaporized steel that was found at WTC means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of the three towers.


Vaporized steel? Is this about that "nanoparticle" thing? That phenomenon is found in all fires. You don't even have to melt steel to get those, you can get it from a campfire.
Click to expand...

What is "that "nanoparticle" thing"? As I mentioned you have to come with a knowledge of the events.


Deuce said:
People made steel weapons in the middle ages and they did not have access to jet fuel. The idea that fire cannot possibly weaken steel enough to collapse is ludicrous.

So, that's several false bits of information I have pointed out to you. You are basing your perception of the event on false information. A reasonable person would reassess that perception.
Click to expand...


The point has nothing to do with weakening steel, so why are you trying to divert attention away from the molten and vaporized steel? Are you trying to suggest that there was no molten or vaporized steel at WTC?
 
Deuce said:
The idea that fire cannot possibly weaken steel enough to collapse is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

That really is a ludicrous idea, for there has never been a steel framed high rise that has ever collapsed due to fire, either before or after 911? How can you think it possible for three to do so, on one day, in the same city, at free fall speed [WTC7] and accelerating speeds.
 
camlok said:
No, that wouldn't be scientific to stop there. You have to address the 220 acres of steel reinforced concrete that was attached to the floor pans with multiple shear studs. How did, according to the official conspiracy theory, a gravity collapse get enough energy to blow up all this concrete into micron size dust particles? And crush all those floors of gigantic steel columns, all while accelerating. That goes against Newton's Third Law.

Why would NIST, the well funded US scientific research body, stop their study of the collapse of the twin towers right at collapse initiation?
Click to expand...

Fire creates small particles all the time.

If I jump off a building with a parachute already deployed, I will accelerate. There's resistance added by the parachute, but I will continue to accelerate until the resistance force equals the force of gravity.

A building collapsing down on its own failing structure will encounter resistance, but will continue that acceleration until the resistance equals the force of gravity. If the resistance were already greater than gravity... well, the structure wouldn't really be collapsing at all, now would it?

And what does any of this have to do with your misuse of the word "pyroclastic?" Didn't you see the footage of people getting enveloped by the cloud on the street? A pyroclastic cloud would have killed every single one of those people.
 
camlok said:
If we are going to discuss this you have to have a modicum of knowledge to do so. Professor Hulsey's study had nothing to do with the twin towers. I didn't say anything about the twin towers and the speed of their fall, yet.

WTC7 fell at free fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds, 105 feet, 8 floors.
Click to expand...

So, are you then admitting that WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at freefall speeds? You should tell Pin Dar. He doesn't believe you.
 
camlok said:
What is "that "nanoparticle" thing"? As I mentioned you have to come with a knowledge of the events.





The point has nothing to do with weakening steel, so why are you trying to divert attention away from the molten and vaporized steel? Are you trying to suggest that there was no molten or vaporized steel at WTC?
Click to expand...

You're claiming "vaporized steel" was found. Typically this is associated with some nonsense about "iron nanoparticles" that supposedly prove the presence of thermite. It's a silly claim, because metal in contact with any sort of fire will produce this effect.
 
Deuce said:
You're claiming "vaporized steel" was found. Typically this is associated with some nonsense about "iron nanoparticles" that supposedly prove the presence of thermite. It's a silly claim, because metal in contact with any sort of fire will produce this effect.
Click to expand...

You are being very imprecise. NIST's second in command scientist categorically denied molten steel. Are you in agreement with him?

Again, are you stating that there was no vaporized steel? Are you claiming that there was no molten steel?
 
camlok said:
You are being very imprecise. NIST's second in command scientist categorically denied molten steel. Are you in agreement with him?

Again, are you stating that there was no vaporized steel? Are you claiming that there was no molten steel?
Click to expand...
I'm not being imprecise, I'm trying to figure out what your claim is. I can't answer your claims without knowing what they are, exactly, hence my asking questions about your claim.

Was there proof of molten steel or molten metal?

Aluminum, for example, melts at a much lower temperature and I have a hard time believing an untrained observer could tell the difference between the two.

You think molten metal proves something. What is it? Thoreau72 thinks that proves nuclear weapons were present. (but some magical kind of nuclear weapon that doesn't emit radiation) But I wouldn't want to just assume you believe the same thing he does.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Yes, I'm aware that the image in question was from above. Did you really think that was what my question was regarding?

What part of that image makes you think fire-induced collapse is impossible? Or are you going to just dodge again?
Click to expand...

The symmetry, the accelerating speed, the pyroclastic flows. When you do see a fire induced collapse, it is never symmetrical. It is partial, halting, very asymmetrical.
 
Deuce said:
I'm not being imprecise, I'm trying to figure out what your claim is. I can't answer your claims without knowing what they are, exactly, hence my asking questions about your claim.

Was there proof of molten steel or molten metal?

Aluminum, for example, melts at a much lower temperature and I have a hard time believing an untrained observer could tell the difference between the two.

You think molten metal proves something. What is it? Thoreau72 thinks that proves nuclear weapons were present. (but some magical kind of nuclear weapon that doesn't emit radiation) But I wouldn't want to just assume you believe the same thing he does.
Click to expand...

It is a very simple question. It goes directly to how knowledgeable you are on this topic. It helps me know where I should start. So once again,

Are you stating that there was no vaporized steel at WTC? Are you claiming that there was no molten steel at WTC?
 
camlok said:
If we are going to discuss this you have to have a modicum of knowledge to do so. Professor Hulsey's study had nothing to do with the twin towers. I didn't say anything about the twin towers and the speed of their fall, yet.

WTC7 fell at free fall speed for the first 2.5 seconds, 105 feet, 8 floors.
Click to expand...


Bolded is untrue
Your problem is you buy into all this CT crap and dont bother to check out to see if any of it is true.
Hint if it comes from a CT site its a lie
 
Looks like we got a new truther who hasn't done his homework to realize that all the nonsense he is spewing has already been debunked.
But then since when did any truther ever actually care about the truth?
 
Quag said:
Bolded is untrue
Your problem is you buy into all this CT crap and dont bother to check out to see if any of it is true.
Hint if it comes from a CT site its a lie
Click to expand...

Professor Husley is not a CT, he is a top US forensic engineer at the Univ of Alaska, Fairbanks.

If you have the info you suggest you have then it shouldn't be at all difficult for you to prove it wrong.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom