78
79

What is your best SCIENTIFIC argument for controlled demolition of the WTC? (self.conspiracy)

thatguyhere92 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順q&a
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]ImprintMemory -19 ポイント-18 ポイント  (30子コメント)

The planes colliding into the buildings were a diversion for the real weapons used that day. The Planes were highjacked but remote controlled to hit their targets except for one. That building still came down though. The buildings were brought down with Directed Energy Weapons. The powers that be that have that level of weaponary are Christian Islamic Zionists and their companies hell bent on fulfilling prophecy. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

[–]stugots85 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (2子コメント)

"Imprint" is a black propogandist, or a useful idiot. Read his/her other posts.

[–]GMOsInMyGelato -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He actually is one of the more correct people on the sub. Kooky on the surface, I know.

[–]stugots85 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (10子コメント)

No. Stop.

[–]grandmacaesar 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I don't know anything about Dr Judy Woods, but I do know this:

The buildings turned to dust in mid-air as they fell. Stop this video at any point, and huge trails of dust can be seen trailing behind everything that is falling. It's not smoke, nor is it ash, as the walls of the building were not on fire. It is dust. The buildings turned to dust as they fell. There weren't 2 piles of "110 pancaked floors" when it was all over.

The next morning, people were asking questions..."Where is all the debris?" Peter Jennings asked shithead tool-on-the-scene George Stephanopoulos what happened to all the debris. He said he spoke to a volunteer worker (Robert Gurlinsky?) who told him both buildings "simply fell down into the ground and were pulverized-evaporated."

Simply.

I don't know how it was done, but the top 20 floors didn't crush the lower 90 floors into dust, then turn themselves into dust. It doesn't matter how many times the lie is told, it's still a lie. God didn't change the basic laws of physics that day to please Bin Laden.

The twin towers turned to dust as they fell.

[–]stugots85 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't believe official story, but rather more standard controlled demolition, perhaps via thermite as there is some evidence for. You're discrediting the real truth movement with Judy Wood black propoganda. We're under scrutiny as it is without that speculative goofy nonsense. Energy weapons...

[–]grandmacaesar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you have functioning eyes and a functioning brain, you can see they were intact, then they completely turned to dust.

Again...I have never sat through any of Dr Judy Woods presentation.

But I will believe my eyes over anyone's words.

If you're willing to think the entirety of both buildings---and everything in them---was sprayed with thermite from top to bottom in order for them to completely turn to dust, you're welcome to believe that insane bullshit. But it is insane bullshit.

I don't know what caused the twin towers to turn to dust, but they fucking well did.

[–]stugots85 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

And I wouldn't write off that you could be in contact with OP; and/or doing this on purpose. Ask a legitimate question, the first thing people see is your BS.

[–]grandmacaesar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I do not know OP, and have not been "in contact" with OP.

I most certainly wrote what I did "on purpose". It is not BS. The twin towers turned to dust in mid-air as they fell. I'm not making it up. You can see it with your own eyes...just because you don't want to believe it or can't handle the truth doesn't mean it's not true.

[–]JimmyJaimes 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Watch Dimitri Khalezov's 9/11thology - The Third Truth about 9/11 if you can make the time for it. If you do you'll come to the conclusion that 9/11 was a nuclear demolition. What you're describing about the buildings turning into dust in mid-air is a direct effect of a nuclear bomb as it atomizes the object. This theory may sound crazy, but I urge looking into it. The reason it sounds crazy to someone at first is because they're used to thinking of atmospheric nuclear explosions with a huge mushroom cloud etc.., this was an underground detonation however. The bombs were required to be placed under the towers so that they had a way to bring them down if need be. The twin towers underground foundations were 27 meters beneath the surface, the 150 kiloton thermo-nuclear demolition charges were positioned at depths of 77 meters (measuring from the surface), or 50 meters below their underground foundations under granite rock. The bomb explodes underneath and then goes to the point of least resistance going up the tower above and pulverizing it and everything in it into dust. This article explains it a bit better and has descriptive pictures also. Interesting that if you look in any dictionary before 9/11, 'Ground Zero' has one definition, "the point at, or above or below of a nuclear detonation".

[–]Homer_Simpson_Doh 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

77 meters (measuring from the surface), or 50 meters below their underground foundations under granite rock.

The nuke theory does fit the mass pulverization and lack of building material, but there are a few holes.

Why were there no EMP outages reported?

I like the underground nuke theory, but one problem is when they detonate the 1st nuke the blast radius would compromise the area where the 2nd nuke was. There would be no way to detonate the 2nd tower, it would have to be done at the the same time; but wasn't.

I dunno, something doesn't add up to turn all those buildings to dust.

[–]Blackwidow20 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

who told him both buildings "simply fell down into the ground and were pulverized-evaporated."

everything was pulverized except for two of the hijackers passports. They survived.

[–]grandmacaesar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I only recall one passport being found.

[–]ImprintMemory -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nope.

[–]quicklypiggly -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Huh. "Christian Islamic Zionists". You don't see that phrase every day.

[–]ImprintMemory -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

That's because they don't like it.

[–]quicklypiggly 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

See, I know a decent amount about Judeo-Christian Zionists. You can read about this topic at different levels from lay to collegiate. What I have never heard of before is "Christian Islamic Zionists". Would you mind terribly providing me with any scholarly articles about this demographic, which I could then peruse at my leisure?

[–]ImprintMemory -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

You leave out Islam saying Judeo-Christian Zionists. I guess you should just start with basic Eschatology first and let me know if you have more questions.

[–]quicklypiggly 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

If you are unwilling to demonstrate anything regarding your unusual claim, simply do not bring it up and you will not be questioned. The presence of eschatological similarities between the three major monotheistic religions does not support the entirety of your conclusions or its implications.

[–]ImprintMemory -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I like how you skipped my first sentence cool guy. I did demonstrate something. I thought you had a scholar level reading comprehension. Your way does not include Islam and the way I said did.

[–]quicklypiggly 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Eh, that's not what I said. But you're overly defensive and unwilling to actually explicate your thought, so I'm not going to entertain it. Cool? Cool.

[–]ImprintMemory -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I win.

[–]Vailhem -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Why?

[–]ImprintMemory -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

To see if God is real.

[–]Vailhem 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Don't get me wrong... I have no doubt 'scalar weapons' are capable of things like this ... and other, wider alterations to things we'd otherwise not imagine possible....

..... but, why take it there? Why not just 'assume' that there was an insurance policy on the building where the providers gave those insured a 'discount' on price if they implemented additional systems/measures that limited collateral damage?

Ex: if i have side-impact airbags, my insurance is cheaper.

in such that, if a building is about to collapse (for 'whatever' reason... plane, earthquake, terrorist attack, tornado, 'whatever') ... instead of that building coming down in an uncontrolled manner and directly affecting other buildings that the policy would also have to cover...

....instead of having to risk the lives of demolitions experts going in to plant charges post-damage....

....just have the systems already installed to bring the building down in a controlled manner.

of course there would need to be protections against the public knowing about this... but that's nothing that a city... esp a city the size, with the complexity, and with the number of large buildings that NYC has... ...couldn't agree to do and to keep a secret within the upper political ranks, building codes, FEMA ordinances, etc.

For the sake of not raising a hooha over all the people that could've been 'potentially saved' as the building sit there in shambles... a decision to 'pull it' is made... during the heat of the attack... and, well, viola, building collapses.

from an insurance (and re-insurance) perspective, it was probably cheaper to do a pay out to the families of the deceased than to deal with countless more medical expenses... and then deal with payout towards those... and potential death likely associated with them.

I'm not saying that the technical capabilities to take down the WTCs... or any other building, fault line, or 'other' doesn't exist (I personally believe that it does) ... but there are simpler explanations for it.

colder in many ways ... because they're more widespread precalculated, and involve more parties.

also,... going with the idea that it was a conspiracy... the buildings not falling down doesn't have the same effect ... ....when you're trying to get 1) global sympathy and 2) populous support for multi-trillion dollar wars that will last well over a decade... ... an effect of that magnitude is all but necessary. ...vs to buildings hit, f'ed up, eventually brought down (possibly) ... and, well, months to years of debate over whether or not to do so.

again... I believe it's technologically plausible that it happened the way the 'scalar weapon theory' purports... but, Occam's razor kinda leans me towards thinking thermite is the more likely cause

the top floors would just need to be designed to turn into dust in such that it's harder to predict where they'll fall ... vs the ones closer to the ground.