WTC Demolition Conspiracy
- Thread starter greenrd
- Start date
All right! I give in. George Bush and Colin Powell did what Rummy and the fat bloke told them to and detonated a nuclear device that blew up the tall building which brought down the other tall building which brought down the other not so tall building in a domino strategy in a machivellian plot that worked exactly as they planned it for whatever nefarious outcome they devised it to initiate. It's all true! My disinfo days are done! I'm done.
I doubt the seismic / quake effect played much of a role. The reported Richter Scale readings from the Twin Towers' collapsing ranged from 2.1 to 2.4 - similar to a small temblor unlikely to cause any structural damage.
7WTC was hit by debris from one of the collapsing towers, causing a major structural wound on its south face and a less extensive but still critical wound on the southwest corner. Both these wounds compromised the overall frame / truss integrity. Another factor was the set of fires started by the debris strikes, which burned for hours and hours because there wasn't sufficient water pressure to fight them. 7WTC collapsed almost 7 hours after the Twin Towers had fallen.
7WTC was hit by debris from one of the collapsing towers, causing a major structural wound on its south face and a less extensive but still critical wound on the southwest corner. Both these wounds compromised the overall frame / truss integrity. Another factor was the set of fires started by the debris strikes, which burned for hours and hours because there wasn't sufficient water pressure to fight them. 7WTC collapsed almost 7 hours after the Twin Towers had fallen.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2019
- Messages
- 103
- Likes
- 267
- Points
- 63
I just don't know if the Yanks could pull off such a clandestine operation on it's own doorstep and do it so well. Hundreds if not thousands of people and preparations involved.it would have been a major gamble.I don't think it was carried out to give an excuse to invade Afganistan/Iraq etc,the U.S wouldn't need to go to that lengths to create a pretext to attack anyone. They are usually content with flimsy excuses{see Grenada/Panama/Desert Storm}The U.S have got better at covert ops over the last 18 years but I don't believe that they were capable of 9/11 at that time.I'm no expert of course. There is lots of factors to 9/11 that may not make sense but really the world has never experienced such an incident in modern times and nothing to really compare it to. Presently the U.S have a President who isn't even trying to hide his intentions. What would be the reason to kill thousands of your own people at such a cost. The CIA have interfered globally since they were founded, instigating every major coup world wide, theu could have came up with something less devastating than 9/11
Doesn't this sound a bit unlikely to you? The likelihood of a nuclear device demolishing a high-rise building without causing damage to surrounding buildings would seem to be fairly low. It was installed during construction - really? On which floor?
There's no big explosion on the footage. Planes hit the buildings, there's a fire which burns for several hours, buildings collapse.
I don't see any evidence of a nuclear explosion.
There's no big explosion on the footage. Planes hit the buildings, there's a fire which burns for several hours, buildings collapse.
I don't see any evidence of a nuclear explosion.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 5,854
- Likes
- 6,082
- Points
- 294
Christ almighty Why do you think that constitutes "spittle-flecked" or "anti-American"? There's nothing there in LZ's post. He is critical about the current president and there is enough evidence that the CIA has been fucking around with different countries for years.
If you think that is Anti-American then there are millions of people who actually live in America who think the same.
"spittle-flecked" - do you ever read your own replies to threads?
Underground. They weren't filming that bit...
(Image grabbed from the website I linked in my original post http://www.911thology.com/nexus1.html)
(Image grabbed from the website I linked in my original post http://www.911thology.com/nexus1.html)
Why underground?
Atomic detonation underground creates a void, which the building can then fall down into. There was a long explanation of it on the web page I read a few years ago but I can't find it now.
However, from memory, it explained that in order to get planning permission to build the towers, a means of demolition for a later date was required and this was (at the time) thought to be the most effective means, and looking at the diagram shown, and the distinct lack of rubble when compared to the height and contents of the building, leads me to my own personal conclusion that this makes more sense of what happened than any of the other explanations I've read.
My own personal conclusion, not stated as a fact, just as "makes sense to me"
Atomic detonation underground creates a void, which the building can then fall down into. There was a long explanation of it on the web page I read a few years ago but I can't find it now.
However, from memory, it explained that in order to get planning permission to build the towers, a means of demolition for a later date was required and this was (at the time) thought to be the most effective means, and looking at the diagram shown, and the distinct lack of rubble when compared to the height and contents of the building, leads me to my own personal conclusion that this makes more sense of what happened than any of the other explanations I've read.
My own personal conclusion, not stated as a fact, just as "makes sense to me"
I remember watching on TV, BBC news 24, probably.
At one point I clearly recall a reporter on the scene shouting that there had been an explosion, the impression was that a bomb had gone off at the base of one of the towers.
They fell down soon after, so it was probably some internal collapse that was part of the final destruction.
At one point I clearly recall a reporter on the scene shouting that there had been an explosion, the impression was that a bomb had gone off at the base of one of the towers.
They fell down soon after, so it was probably some internal collapse that was part of the final destruction.
I was looking to see if I could find what I mentioned above.
I found this instead.
It made me laugh. People are funny.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...vader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html
I found this instead.
It made me laugh. People are funny.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...vader-refused-pay-BBC-covered-facts-9-11.html
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2014
- Messages
- 8,539
- Likes
- 8,580
- Points
- 279
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 5,727
- Likes
- 3,965
- Points
- 244
I often wonder what datum people are using when they make this type of claim - what comparison is being made which indicates an anomaly in this particular case?
Buildings mainly consist of air: they are frameworks in which a relatively large amount of void is enclosed by a relatively small amount of mass - and, compared to that mass, the loose contents of the structure are incredibly fragile. The piles of post collapse debris have never screamed out to me as being obviously out of proportion to the fabric of the undamaged structure.
Buildings mainly consist of air: they are frameworks in which a relatively large amount of void is enclosed by a relatively small amount of mass - and, compared to that mass, the loose contents of the structure are incredibly fragile. The piles of post collapse debris have never screamed out to me as being obviously out of proportion to the fabric of the undamaged structure.
Last edited: