45
Comments (47)
sorted by:
6
SpicyCoof 6 points ago +7 / -1

Direct energy weapons dawg.

3
Dicyanin2C 3 points ago +4 / -1

This is exactly the technology used in the California "wildfires". Neighborhoods torched, but trees unscathed. How does a fire completely destroy a home, melt vehicles to the point that aluminum rims are melted into puddles but the trees aren't even burned??

They have technological achievements that would blow our minds, DEWs..... It's not a theory, it is a conspiracy.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't think so. The wildfires were global this summer and coincided with bouts unusually heavy rain. Both of these are the consequences of people making it rain by spraying the atmosphere.

3
no_ez 3 points ago +4 / -1

Yup, the aluminum nano particles themselves are soaked into the trees and plantlife making the fires burn either hotter or in strange patterns.

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

Could you please show me what you are talking about? What you are saying seems outside of known technology.

1
no_ez 1 point ago +1 / -0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aZi-LOwq3qo Check this one out right at 23:45 minutes into the video... this scientist’s testimony is great. If you’re new to chemtrails, it can be difficult to research... also, if you rely on “known technology” in a conspiracy forum... you’re gonna have a bad time. :) /s

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
turtlebam 1 point ago +1 / -0

They were global, fires happened all over the Mediterranean as well: Greece, Turkey, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Palestine, etc..

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

This summer there have been wildfires in the United States, Canada, Russia, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Algeria, Lebanon, Israel, Bolivia and elsewhere.

2
tonnertabhes 2 points ago +2 / -0

I spent all of highschool watching videos of 9/11 over and over again because I was so fascinated with it. That Marriott was NOT there.

2
DZP1 2 points ago +5 / -3

I've had inside information for decades that the buildings were brought down by "dial a nuke"s placed in the subbasements. These are military weapons designed to be able to leave little radioactivity afterwards. Info was via a leaked security clearanced source inside the New York Port Authority.

The nukes blew straight up elevator shafts and also - important - inadvertently blew pressure through the sewer system under these and neighboring buildings. That was detected but not talked about.

Another thing is the nukes emitted radiation some of which left the buildings and radiated out. Much of it was absorbed by nearby buildings but some went through gaps between buildings and was absorbed by the metal in parked cars blocks away. There the heated metal burned its paint off and yet nearby newspapers which were nonmetallic and so did not absorb the energy, did not burn. Absolute proof radiation was emitted, as this was not thermal energy from any collapse, and no way that could have happened by any other mechanism.

Also tritium levels in air were elevated, and the steel that Bush immediately sent to China (to be melted and of course destroyed as evidence) was also radioactive.

I came into this when I worked on a project to furnish screening of trucks entering the new replacement towers. There is an underground facility for supply trucks that enter under the buildings. All vehicles coming in get scanned for radiation; this is to prevent nukes from being used in the future again. But locking the barn door after horses get out.

As for disparaging remarks related to credibility, I was part of a team that worked with the Port Authority to protect the new towers. To do that, we were opened to their information sources. I relate what I know, and there is some nasty stuff I may not disclose, but what I say is true, not made up or grandstanding.

5
PuzzleheadedWhile9 [S] 5 points ago +6 / -1

This suggestion ignores survivors inside WTC1 (Miracle of Stairwell B), ignores the lack of flash and blast (sound), and ignores the unburned people in the dust clouds.

Your "inside information" means nothing if it is incommensurate with the documentable evidence.

1
17-45Pepe45_17 1 point ago +1 / -0

You both need to listen to manny Rodriguez first, then come and debate this.

1
DZP1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your debugging attempt is accepted but I will address each point.

  1. A blast up elevator shafts has no connection to stairwells.
  2. Lack of flash and blast. A nuke in the basement does not flash out of upper stories. As for blast, there are very specific seismo recordings documenting a high energy pulse PRE COLLAPSE. And no, not the plane hits. Which show up too. Also, witness in basement saw 20 ton steel doors get blasted open and crushed. Evidence indicates truck with bomb in underground garage and mostly likely positioned precisely under shafts for maximum effect.
  3. Unburned people in dust clouds. Open to debate; blast energy converted to breaking material apart and forming dust clouds has nothing to do with unburned people. The cloud may not have been thermally very hot as such. However, I note that many people, over time and continuing to now, have cancer very likely from short-lived radioactives in the dust clouds.

As for disparaging 'inside information' I accept scoffing but I am honest, and have much more not disclosed info. This material is real, and we know who pulled off the takedown. Not just one party. Foreign and domestic.

2
PuzzleheadedWhile9 [S] 2 points ago +3 / -1
  1. The elevators and stairs are both in the central core. How did they not hear such an event? They say the noise came from above.
  2. This is a claim. I would love to see the seismographic data from the source regarding your claim of an energy pulse pre collapse. Thank you!
  3. If this is ionizing radiation creating dust clouds, how does it not relate to people being burned? If it is thermal, how does it not relate to people being burned? How were there no radiation burns, especially considering "the nukes emitted radiation" that "heated [the] metal burned its paint off"?
1
DZP1 1 point ago +1 / -0
  1. How did they not hear? It happened BEFORE the people began panic fleeing.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html https://serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm 3. You are confusing ionizing radiation with thermal radiation. 4. As I mentioned, dial-a-nukes are configurable for what radiation is given off. And on the car burning, it is obvious that intervening buildings screened some radiation beaming but some got through in a narrow pattern to the cars. No radiation burns: again, you do not have a full model or understanding. As I said, energy was emitted in bands that do not affect newspapers (carbon and human tissues) but which is absorbable by metals.

2
PuzzleheadedWhile9 [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0
  1. They were in the building preceding, during, and after
  2. Your source correctly indicates that these are surface waves (Rayleigh waves), not waves that travel through the earth (Primary and Secondary seismic waves), as well as characterizing that it was "the interaction between the ground and the building foundation", ie how hard the building was pressing down onto the earth lessened and the ground sprang up. There are no other CD or underground nuclear blasts whose seismic signature was Rayleigh waves only.
  3. I am not confusing anything, I am addressing both. Either way there is an issue with evidence consistency.
  4. Pure assertion about "dial-a-nukes". Show me the wavebands that are absorbed by metal and which do not affect human tissue. Steel's best absorption spectrum at 1040nm is ultraviolet and will most certainly burn and irradiate you.
1
DZP1 1 point ago +1 / -0
  1. The detected waves happened after plane crash and BEFORE collapse as a triggering energy source would.

  2. repeating ELI5: ionizing radiation is NOT thermal energy. It is X-rays, basically. Furthermore, your model is flawed. You assume all energy that was emitted was ionizing? A nuke can emit many kinds of radiation across the spectrum, depending on design parameters and adjustable values. A bomb emitting an EMP pulse can couple into metals, i.e. wires and cables, yet not touch human tissue.

  3. UV as best does not preclude absorption of other energy such as X-rays and in particular E/M waves that couple right into metal but their magnetic fields will not affect human tissue. Also we know that tissues are poor at absorbing X-ray energy, obviously medical and dental.

Your argument against evidence consistency is weak given that there are multiple pieces of evidence that are strong. Why don't you consult your rabbi on this.

1
PuzzleheadedWhile9 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Given your insistence I must be a Jew because I don't accept your flawed model of the WTC complex destruction, I think I can walk away knowing your mind will never change. Read the book, I've posted it. I see you're done trying to argue about survivors inside WTC1 because it is totally annihilates your suggestion. 2. Not true, they coincide with with initiation of destruction, not before. Snake tongue. 3. If what you think ionizing radiation is "X-rays, basiaclly," you have no place to lecture me about electromagnetics. LOL! I never said that. 4. Your ignorance is laughable. Tell your master they need a better shill than you!

4
KiloRomeo 4 points ago +4 / -0

What do you make of evidence from other truthers who have discovered evidence of thermite within the wreckage? The buildings fall at free fall speeds and appears to be demoed

2
DZP1 2 points ago +2 / -0

You have a good point. Prior to the collapse event, the building were closed off and teams installed thermite on supports to weaken them. The collapse was engineered with multiple points for takedown. I note that the official building photographer was barred from the building during the thermite installation period. He commented on it to reporters in the years right after the event.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
DZP1 2 points ago +2 / -0

Okay. On the US government side, Dick Cheney, who was the real president behind George Bush who was just a figurehead but the son of Bush senior. Dick and Sr Bush were Neocons, allies of the elite.

The Israelis were big operatives, Mossad teams handling much of the needed work. Silverstein of course working with Mossad. The Israelis worked with Saudi royalty, and the Saudis set up the lower end of the chain (pilots/willing dupes). Mossad monitored the dupes in Florida preflight.

On the big day, Mossad teams like the moving company guys got in place and recorded the event, but were caught when people reported the dancing Israelis. An Israeli moving van was stopped by police and it tested out having carried explosives. There was a foiled plot to bomb a bridge leading out of NYC.

The nukes were handled by a combined US team of subversives in the military, a fifth column, and Mossad. The US traitors supplied stolen nukes, the Israeli did the planting under the towers with full cooperation of Silverstein. Cheney and the traitors also handled the Pennsylvania crash.

The Pentagon hit was not the passenger jet as claimed but a drone painted to resemble the jet. I know a TV producer who was there and he identified that it would be impossible for a passenger jet to have come up over the rim of land around the Pentagon and then dip at that speed close to the ground. The surveillance tapes confiscated by the FBI - which also was infiltrated with Neocon operatives - tell the truth and they will never be released. However, I saw photos of the crash parts outside the Pentagon - I still have the FEMA photos - and identified that the turbine wreckage was not from a passenger jet. I have worked in aerospace with a turbine manufacturer and knew right away when I saw the photos that it was too small to be a Boeing passenger jet unit.

There is a lot more but I will not write an encyclopedia here.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

They did not need some exotic atomic bomb to demolish the buildings.

1
DZP1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Brainwashed by the media I see. The fuel from two jets did everything?

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

No. I think they were demolished using a feasible method.

1
DZP1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Calculation of the energy required to destroy the towers shows that the jet fuel, and burning paper etc., did not have the energy required to disintegrate the concrete as well as melt all the steel. The pools of molten steel found underground after the collapse implied that their melt was at twice the melting point of steel. Jet fuel and burning file cabinets alone cannot do that - it takes a more powerful energy source. Pretty much only a nuke could furnish that energy.

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

These are strawman arguments. Forgive me if I am wrong, but nobody here is proposing that the materials you keep referencing (jet fuel, burning paper, etc.) are what brought the towers down.

EDIT: The following quotation of u/DZP is badly out of context. I apologize. I misread it as only a nuke could furnish the energy to bring down superstructures like the Twin Towers when in fact the point was the vast amount of heat produced. My response to that is the research that has been done on use of thermite and how much, but I am not knowledgeable about that.

...it takes a more powerful energy source. Pretty much only a nuke could furnish that energy.

You don't believe that buildings can be pulled using non-nuclear means?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-1
RichardNIxon2point0 -1 points ago +1 / -2

The buildings start their collapse at the EXACT spots that the planes hit. How do you explain that with basement nukes?

The whole top collapsed above the impact area before anything below the impact area even moves.

There was plenty fucked up on 9-11, but no one can ever explain me that fact other than some magical technology, or they rigged the entire building and only set off those bombs (incredibly stupid to think any wiring for bombs or even radio tranceivers would work after sitting in fires for hours.).

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think the fire crews that went in did so to manually set the demolitions in motion. It was a secret safety protocol to prevent a domino effect in Manhattan.

0
RichardNIxon2point0 0 points ago +1 / -1

But the demolitions would have had to be at the point of impact. There is no one on the planet that will convince me that whatever setup was there survived the planes and hours of fires.

Do you know the melting point of small wires and circuitry that's required for explosives?

No one would be able to go in and wire it for demolition at that point.

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

You are assuming a few things.

I do not agree that the point of impact from the airplanes is necessarily a factor in the takedown. In fact, I think it is unlikely.

I do not believe that explosives were necessarily used, although I do think it is probable.

I do not believe a controlled demolition requires fragile components.

I do not believe that the takedown needed to occur in an exact spot that was ravaged by fire.

It is unclear to me how much time it would take to execute an emergency demolition if the protocol were pre-planned and practiced.

0
RichardNIxon2point0 0 points ago +1 / -1

But the buildings started collapsing right at the impact. Check here at 5:55. You can clearly see the top collapsing and the building beneath the impact not moving one bit until the top collides with it.

https://youtu.be/UVhhu5OjMf8?t=352

I just don't see any way to predict or pull this off without some magic.

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, they were crashed into by jet airliners that blew holes through the building at the point of impact you are talking about. Massive fireball, burning for hours and all that. It is not implausible that that would affect the fall of the building.

1
DZP1 1 point ago +1 / -0

Start of damage does not preclude or eliminate other co-existing causes of damage.

<incredibly stupid to think any wiring for bombs or even radio tranceivers would work after sitting in fires for hours>

Timers can and are made to be rugged. Further, local explosions of thermite within the infrastructure could easily have been timed to go off, or have been centrally wired to a detonator box preceding collapse.

1
SuicideTruthbomber 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think that someone had to go in and manually do something to make it happen.

Oh, I should also explain that one theory of mine is that buildings libel to cause epic catastrophes if they collapse sideways can be outfitted with the means by which to demolish them even as early as their initial construction. However, allowing this to be done by remote control is a risk they would never take, so it takes a crew to go in and enable the emergency takedown.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
RichardNIxon2point0 0 points ago +1 / -1

Not even close. Look here at 3 minutes. You can see the top collapsing above the impact while everything below is 100% stationary. Tehre are also close up shots that make this even more apparent.

https://youtu.be/ft2uIYucsXo?t=183

2
perpetual_notion 2 points ago +2 / -0

The perfect diagonal cuts in the beams were a pretty good indication of controlled demolition.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0