DOE agrees 9-11 was a Nuclear Event

Discussion in '9/11' started by John T, Jan 22, 2015.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For the floors involved,the fires WERE massive

    And the damage wasn't just caused by fires,and it wasn't a nuke
     
  2. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,110
    Likes Received:
    11,949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hope this link works.

    http://tinyurl.com/oox9hc8

    The writers and investigators over at Veterans Today are studying nuclear facts and publishing their work. It is very interesting.

    LoneStr

    If the damage wasn't caused just by fires as you say, then what else was involved?
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    *Banging head against wall* for the 6788th time for you truthers,STRUCTURAL damage.

    As for your 'investigators',just a dolled up bunch of truthers using veterans for credibility
     
  4. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,116
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Structural damage from the crash
     
  5. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    what always look strange to me, was the first tower that came down. The impact was towards the top, with not than many floors above the impact site, yet that weight, came down, and somehow overwhelmed the iron and steel super structure below it, which was around 4/5ths of the building. It would have looked much less strange, if those few upper floors had come crashing down, and then after damaging a few floors below the impact site, had stopped. But that 1/5 of the building brought the rest down,and it was very fast. I doubt this could be recreated.

    Then there are all of those stories from firemen, and others, which do not jive with the official story. Where there is incoherence with the official story, that should be a red flag that raises question, which it did for the 2200. Now if these 2200 were village idiots, that would be one thing, but that number is filled with experts and professionals. Yet they are derided?

    For me, the only other thing that would explain how all of those buildings came down, as they did, would be Allah was involved. That so many people see something very strange about this, isn't because they are idiots, but because I think they are not as easily fooled as others.

    If you just look at all of the incoherences about that day, and they are on you tube, something just isn't quite right folks.

    I fought in the Vietnam war, risked my life, because I was told we had sailors floating in the gulf of Tonkin. Years later a high gov't official said that incident never happened. Am I too now to trust what my gov't says? Especially considering how 9-11 was used to invade a sovereign nation, as one of the reasons.

    BTW, Gage has been trying to get an independent full investigation, and he cannot get it done. So to say that he would investigate but has not, is not quite being honest about this.

    Also, if damaging the steel structure and then setting a kerosene fire, would bring down the twin towers so easily, not to mention bld 7, then that is what professional demo teams should use from here on out, for they could do that damage without planes, just a few explosives and kerosene, and really make out like bandits on the profit margin. And they could do it in one short day, without spending weeks rigging a building. Just the savings charges and labor would make them very successful, for their costs to bring down a big building would be much cheaper.

    So let me know when the next demo is done without all of the charges and labor, and in one day. LOL
     
  6. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,110
    Likes Received:
    11,949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah, structural damage! Considering that the architects and engineers that designed and built the towers are on record declaring that the towers had been built with just such an accident in mind, and that the towers stood just fine, as designed, that is not a convincing point, at all.

    The structural damage was not fatal. Moreover, at least one massive explosive occurred in the basement levels even before the airplane struck.

    It was an inside job.
     
  7. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, they went 'on the record' for designing the building to withstand the impact of a 707 (a smaller craft) and they also admitted to not factoring in the fuel load,

    The collapses would demonstrate otherwise. Your information is incorrect, the damage was definitely 'fatal'.

    A fuel explosion travelled down the lift wells. A basement explosion does not explain why the collapses initiated at the impact points.


    Yes, an al-Qaeda cell within the US.
     
  8. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    9/11 was no accident

    And the structures DID survive the initial strikes
     
  9. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The explosion occurred prior to the plane striking the building. I think there are witnesses to that. No? You do not believe the people who experienced it? Why?

    You need to listen to all of the people who have spoken out as to what they experienced that day, but oddly enough the deniers will not do that. Why should they? They already believe the farce of the commission, who were interested in making sure no one was implicated except the radicals.

    And of course you can trust your gov't. They are always honest and with the highest integrity. They would never lie.
     
  10. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, that's what Rodriguez said in ONE interview, and he contradicted it in another,

    Only Rodriguez and his testimony is highly mutable. Seriously? Why is a basement explosion required to cause a collapse at the impact points? Think about it.

    You make asinine assumptions here. I've heard and read all the arguments thank you very much.

    Simply because the evidence is against the fantasies of 9/11 truth. Nothing more, nothing less.

    And there is another brain dead meme from 9/11 truth. Logic fail. You assume that because I don't swallow the inane stories of 9/11 truth, I must have utter faith in the government. That is retarded and insulting, especially from a dupe who will swallow stupid stories while lacking skill in reason or logic.
     
  11. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was sure I heard more than just one guy talk about that explosion... I spent about a week after years of thinking the truthers were just nutty, listening to various witnesses, not only of that, but of other explosions, and I have a different recollection than you do. I do not think you may have heard what I heard from witnesses. Not only in regards to the twin towers, but also number 7. What I heard, is incoherent with the official story. I do not like incoherences. Do you just step over them?

    As I said, I never thought this was anything more than it appeared to be, until many years later. But something is just not right, and I am not alone in sensing that, as there are loads of people, engineers, architects, ex cia, ex military, physicists, that find an incoherence too. And where there is smoke, there may be more than the official story lets on.

    If not for the history of our cia, our politicians, dreaming up schemes in the past, like the scheme to connect cuba with a blown up airliner by the cia, all perpetrated by our gov't.....well, this would be much less likely to be a possible conspiracy. But given our history? And when you have it down on paper, the new American century plan from the neocons, with a list of those nations in the middle east to destabilized, and this event was used to put that scheme into motion, and so far of that list, Iraq, and Libya have fallen, with another on Syria in the process, with Iran still left as well as a couple African nations....this isn't a coincidence. What gave us the reason, under a neocon admin, to set that plan into motion? 9-11? Yep.
     
  12. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,116
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is zero evidence of an inside job.

    Just because someone designed something a certain way does not mean it worked as designed.

    The combination of structural damage and fire caused the collapse.

    Any claim of an inside job is idiotic without a shred of evidence or even logic
     
  13. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    So have I, but they were using it in a metaphorical sense.

    Do you mean inconsistent?

    I found no inconsistencies when I investigated all the claims. Sure, if I swallowed what some biased secondary source stated without checking it out I might share your views.

    I look at it logically and rationally and none of the claims made by 9/11 truth appear reasonable, practical and logical-not one.

    Confirmation bias. There is no evidence to support the irrational claims of 9/11 truth.
     
  14. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,110
    Likes Received:
    11,949
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  15. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you aware that Rodriguez cannot stick to one story? Sorry, he has no cred with me because his story is as mutable as the language itself.
     
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,110
    Likes Received:
    11,949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that is strange, because I have seen several videos of Rodriguez telling his story to a few different audiences. I have also read transcripts of his story.

    His story is very consistent IMO--he always tells the same story.

    "Not sticking to one story" was the complaint at the 911 Commission against various Pentagon witnesses, not against Rodriguez.
     
  17. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,116
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong Rodriguez has altered important details too many times to enjoy any credibility that is fact not opinion.

    In the end the building was burning. Explosions are normal in any building fire as are loud noises like explosions such as collapsing floors.

    He did not provide evidence of anything other than events normal and common to such a massive fire.

    Not one piece of evidence exists to refute the official explanation which is based on evidence
     
  18. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,116
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They were not heard before the impact.

    You merely made that one up

    Saying the government has lied does not indicate proof of a specific lie

    Most do not trust the government for good reason
    In this case they are right and all the evidence proves it.
     
  19. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    56,337
    Likes Received:
    27,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course. It can't be that your unrealistic and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is wrong. No, those who disagree with you must be in on the conspiracy! Because it's all or nothing!
     
  20. Blues63

    Blues63 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,161
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    No, he keeps changing details in his story and he is notorious for it. If you didn't notice this, maybe you didn't want to.
     
  21. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    23,110
    Likes Received:
    11,949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are either completely ignorant of what Rodriguez actually said many times, his testimony, or you are in deep denial.

    Either way, you simply repeat government talking points.

    I have seen and read the testimony of Rodriguez, and it is consistent through several venues, including in Europe.

    Happy Fourth, but we're finished.
     
  22. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,116
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He has given his testimony many times and changed it often.

    This ruins his credibility and that is fact
     
  23. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    testimony?

    got a copy of the transcript that you believe is in conflict. I would like to review it to see if that is a proper assessment
     
  24. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,948
    Likes Received:
    1,890
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Irrelevant. He can change his story as much as he wants as long as there are no material changes. You have not cited material changes, which is why I want to review the transcripts you should be working from. You are working from actual transcripts are you not?
     
  25. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    19,116
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They have been repeatedly posted for you on these threads.

    You have seen them and read them and are a liar if you deny you have seen them


    You are playing the same lldngame of asking for what you have already seen in the hope people will forget you HAVE already been provided with said evidence.

    This is a typical twoofers game and you lose

    - - - Updated - - -

    Yes it has been cited for you and you know it and yes he has repeatedly changed significant material details
     

Share This Page