posted ago by axolotl_peyotl ago by axolotl_peyotl +19 / -2

What better way to promote infighting and disagreement among the conspiracy research community when trying to analyze the event?

Throw some bombs in the bases (see Barry Jennings) and some squibs throughout the buildings, and you have the "controlled demo" proponents.

Toss in some industrial grade thermite, hire the painfully blatant spook Dr. Steven Jones to push the thermite red herring, and you have the thermite OP proponents.

I'm not sure about the mini-nukes...perhaps one was used?

The biggest of them all, and the reason the other "methods" were used as distraction, is the clear evidence of Directed Energy technology used to dustify the towers.

Judy Wood's "Where Did the Towers Go?" is the final word on their destruction. The shills are tasked to "debunk" her but they can only go "hurr durr space laser!" when she literally never mentions space and doesn't try to identify the weapon itself.

Watch the "collapse" of the towers again. This was the debut of high technology for those who were paying attention. It was a "hey, look what WE can do" moment for humanity, and a moment of great evil and deception for all of human history.

So they used bombs, they used thermite, and they "dustified" the towers just to be sure.

Now the conspiracy theorists are arguing about HOW it was done instead of joining forces, stepping back, and looking at the bigger picture and the historical and technological context of the event.

9/11 woke up a lot of us. We must continue to use the event as a catalyst for red-pilling the planet.

It may be our last chance.

Comments (17)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
clemaneuverers 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm way more skeptical about nukes than I am about thermite and a directed energy weapon such as the evidence presented by Judy Wood and others supports; there is no way thermite alone could have resulted in the kinds of anomalous destruction we see with the WTC1 & 2. WTC7 looks more conventional.

If anyone is open to examining the hidden (un)reality of nuclear weapons, I reccommend Akio Nakatani's book "Death Object: Exploding The Nuclear Weapons Hoax" which is on Libgen and Archive.org.

MOCKxTHExCROSS 2 points ago +2 / -0

those videos of the first nuclear tests look so fake when re-watched with a critical eye

Hand_Of_Node 1 point ago +1 / -0

the hidden (un)reality of nuclear weapons

Is there a brief debunking explanation that takes that out of the seemingly 'total bullshit' category?

clemaneuverers 2 points ago +2 / -0

The book I recommended is short and well written, and even amusing. Personally I don't recommend any other sources, since I've seen this topic handled badly.

I can't really sum up the arguments made in a short comment. The argument that is well presented is that, in fact, controlled, instantaneous, explosive nuclear fission is not physically possible; which explains why it has not been done since it was faked in Japan.

A bit like the moon landings.

Any attempt at doing nuclear bombs how they say those bombs work, would result in the thing melting in an awful nuclear mess (think the "elephants foot" in Chernobyl), rather than exploding and vaporizing everything around it. Deadly, but not explosive. There are explosive triggers in nukes, but they are TNT or similar, not nuclear material.

The photographs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima support this. There are concrete and brick structures (and even trees) still standing at ground zero. They just look like they have been burned.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were firebombed with napalm and mustard gas (like Dresden) over a period of time. America already had control of Japan for a year prior to the day they say they dropped the bombs. They chose two fairly inconsequential cities, which they had already destroyed, to be 'nuked'.

It may sound ridiculous, but then so does the moon landing hoax to those who have never looked into with an open mind.

Hand_Of_Node 1 point ago +1 / -0

Keep one thing in mind as you read. In addition to all the junky byproducts of a nuclear blast listed above, there’s one other: photon emissions. That’s visible light and it’s what I hope this book can radiate. I think you’ll find it both enlightening (like a stimulating course lecture) and entertaining (like a horror movie).

How could a topic so unthinkably ghastly be entertaining? I don’t mean to disrespect the suffering of anybody injured or killed in any war, by any means — conventional or otherwise. In this world of madness and pain, we need gallows humor. I use levity to reduce our risk of ending up like noted historian Iris Chang, who (it is speculated), spiraled into suicidal depression after interviewing one too many of the survivors of the 20" century’s worst horrors.

As a counter-balance, I advise all readers to browse the Hiroshima memoir Barefoot Gen (manga by Keiji Nakazawa) in parallel. Whenever you tire of the occasional witticism or moment of sarcastic levity in this book, revert to Barefoot Gen. Absorb the madness and mainline the stupefying graphic atrocity as a mood-corrective. The conventional understanding of nuclear history is as true in its function of allegory and metaphor (or warning and prophecy) as it is false in its literal facts. - https://archive.org/details/death-object-exploding-the-nuclear-weapons-hoax-by-akio-nakatani-z-lib.org/page/n5/mode/2up (6 of 228)

Prolog sells the book. Now I'm on the first two pages of the intro, and it's still looking like one for the 'actually read' pile. Thanks.

As one who didn't necessarily gape in awe, but did stay up late to watch as a kid, do you have one like that for the moon landing?

clemaneuverers 2 points ago +2 / -0

For the moon landings I've too many sources! Not one particular book though, probably the best intro is the recent documentary, American Moon which does a good job of summing up some of the best arguments that have developed over the years from various sources. The writer director is a professional photographer so there is a big focus on the photographic documentation.