• 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]

The unusual platy configurations of aluminum silicates found in those lung tissue samples seem similar to the platy configurations of aluminum and silicon in the nanothermite
I thought you said explosives were involved? Nanothermite is not an explosive.
 
I thought you said explosives were involved? Nanothermite is not an explosive.

Also thought only creditable sources were to be used. Oh wait, that is only for those who disagrees with his view.

camlok, has been linking to sites that are known CT sites/authors and have been debunked years ago.
 
The huge pyroclastic dust clouds are just another very telling example that the twin towers were controlled demolitions.
https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/pyroclastic_flows.html

Just some information about pyroclastic clouds/flow. Can you tell me what characteristics in that article above were present in the clouds on the day of 9/11? Where the same hot gases involved? I wonder how paper and trees survived those hot gases?
 
Please explain.
Thermite does not explode. It melts steel by creating high temperatures. Unless you are talking about thermitic shape charges which "cut" the steel, not melt it. So which is it?
 
In the paper you link above, it states that the steel analyzed approached temperatures of 1,000 degrees C (1,800 degrees F).


Melting point of steel 2,800F Vaporizing point of steel 4,800+F
Explain how the paper you linked above supports the 2,800F and 4,800F temperatures in your quote. Then you can explain how one determined that the holes in the steel beams was a result of melting away or being vaporized? How does one determine if the steel from those holes was:

1. Eroded by a eutectic reaction at 1,800 degrees F temperatures
2. Melted by 2,800 degrees F temperatures
3. Vaporized by 4,800 degrees F temperatures

So far you've only provided proof of eutectic/chemical erosion. You've disproved thermite and explosives right there. Or maybe you can explain how explosives can "erode" holes in steel at about 1,800 degrees F?
 
Are you that terrified that you can even go to the link I provided where you can see pictures?




Not only molten but vaporized.

First you deny molten/vaporized steel, now you allow for its existence. You knew before [for how long?], or now know that the available fuels brought by the alleged hijackers could not [could not = absolutely impossible] have melted or vaporized steel, then you ask why there isn't "another more likely explanation"?!

Talk about desperation, drowning folks grasping at straws.

Translation you haved 0 evidence for molten steel
 
Please explain.

Thermite doesn't explode. It creates very localized, very high temperatures which are often used to cut steel. You don't melt girders with thermite, it has an order of magnitude less energy than jet fuel.

It is better to describe it as acting like a welding torch rather than a bomb.
 
Last edited:
This ability of avoiding facts seems to be endemic in the truther world.

You wouldn't happen to be a Captain Beefheart fan would you? Your avatar suggests maybe...
 
You wouldn't happen to be a Captain Beefheart fan would you? Your avatar suggests maybe...

I am and I had the privilege of seeing the Captain and the classic Magic band line up twice.
 
Camlok, you still around?
 
What do you know, the topic of strange cancers and their incidence is brought back by MSM. Shocked?

https://www.rt.com/usa/435801-911-dust-cancer-cases/

The cancers are not "strange". It is only strange to those who are not informed.

Interesting that the article you linked does not state radiation was the cause. It did mention dust and smoke. "
Inhaling particles from the leaked jet fuel, asbestos, cement dust and glass shards following the destruction of the World Trade Center has led to cancer proliferation ". The dust and smoke was created by the collapse of the buildings and fires. Even Gage (AE911T) and his staff while they believe it was controlled demolition, they do not accept that nukes were used as Prager has suggested.

I have provided information in other threads that shows firefighters who never worked the 9/11 site have come down with cancer. Here is just two of many sources.

Washington Post writes about firefighters and cancer - Wildfire Today

Wildland fire smoke health effects on wildland firefighters and the public ? Great Basin Fire Science Exchange

The studies indicate that working in an ash and smoke environment can cause health issues.

Do you believe nukes were used on these wildfires and structures since the firefighters came down with cancer?. :mrgreen: Or is the health issues of firefighters who never worked the 9/11 site just strange?
 
Last edited:
What do you know, the topic of strange cancers and their incidence is brought back by MSM. Shocked?

https://www.rt.com/usa/435801-911-dust-cancer-cases/

Not at all. The number of toxic substances found in that smoke wouldn't even fit in a forum post.

In fact, the evidence you just presented tilts away from radiation exposure. See, the cancers suffered by the 9/11 first responders cluster in several types that have numerous causes. (including toxic exposures and radiation) However, if the primary cause were radiation exposure there are several other types of cancer one would expect to see that' aren't statistically elevated in this group.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. The number of toxic substances found in that smoke wouldn't even fit in a forum post.

In fact, the evidence you just presented tilts away from radiation exposure. See, the cancers suffered by the 9/11 first responders cluster in several types that have numerous causes. (including toxic exposures and radiation) However, if the primary cause were radiation exposure there are several other types of cancer one would expect to see that' aren't statistically elevated in this group.

Others disagree with you Deuce.

I'm going with their interpretation of facts. All the damage at WTC, including the radiation sickness of Tartaglia and others, Tartaglia's comments before his death, lateral displacement of massive structural pieces, and much more, all point to a nuclear event that among other things, kept steel in a molten state for about 90 days.

People in denial of facts are not driven by reason.
 
People in denial of facts are not driven by reason.


True. Many who cling to the explanation the firefighter illness is from radiation only are ignoring the facts. The nuke supporters continue to ignore and will not answer why some firefighters who never worked the WTC site have come down with the same type of illnesses. Even some wildland firefighters have come down with cancer. Why is that?

So you are correct. "People in denial of facts are not driven by reason."
 
Others disagree with you Deuce.

I'm going with their interpretation of facts. All the damage at WTC, including the radiation sickness of Tartaglia and others, Tartaglia's comments before his death, lateral displacement of massive structural pieces, and much more, all point to a nuclear event that among other things, kept steel in a molten state for about 90 days.

People in denial of facts are not driven by reason.

More people agree with me so I win see you later!

"Lateral displacement" doesn't point to a nuclear event. The potential energy in the structure alone was in the ~100 tons of TNT range. You don't think a hundred tons of TNT can eject girders sideways? :lamo

There wasn't a single diagnosis of radiation sickness or a single detection of elevated radiation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom