Oh Vey. I dropped links on how tactical nuclear weapons were used to bring down the Twin Towers...

Oh Vey. I dropped links on how tactical nuclear weapons were used to bring down the Twin Towers, as well as how (((they))) did it without any planes, and the thread got deleted! It is likely that only first responders died, as it was necessary to get our intelligence agencies on board. The hundreds of thousands now suffering from various cancers may not have been intended. The goals of 9/11 were to:

-cover up the missing Pentagon dollars
-clear out Iraq and Syria to kickstart the creation of greater Israel
-create mass surveillance on the populations of the globe in the name of "safety" from an enemy
-spark wars in order to create that "enemy"
-secure global opium trade, and increase production 10,000 fold
-carry out symbolic Freemasonic ritual commencing the rebirth of ISIS

Every goal was successful. Here is how they did it: German Physicist Heinz Pommer explains nuclear weapons used in a conference of PhD's:

youtube.com/watch?v=G8xUkOudMts youtube.com/watch?v=-uHhbxepqlQ youtube.com/watch?v=eZHabJDP6s4

Dmitri Khalezov is a USSR nuclear worker/officer:

www. 911thology.com/nexus1.html youtube.com/watch?v=cUnjbCxhXh4

Simon Shack runs you through the "live" CGI. The original faked footage (aired in 17 second delay) of the planes was literally copied and pasted into new backgrounds to create the pool of footage (34 amateur videos):

youtube.com/watch?v=gORu-68SHpEYouTube

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/QgbJb
youtube.com/watch?v=pWG89zJrRH4
wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition
archive.is/WAriT
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

I don't believe the CGI theory. I do believe there was nano-thermite planted from within every floor of the tower in a controlled demolition. The CGI doesn't explain those who actually witnessed planes hit the towers. I do believe the sick kikes actually rammed planes into the towers with passengers onboard sure but that alone could not have brought the towers down.

Move along folks. Another tard mixing piss with the wine.
The likeliest and most supported way was thermite planted during 'asbestos removal' renovations. A small bit of heat would be enough to ignite from top to bottom floor, and the fire on building 7 would do the same. No bullshit that any geologist could discredit in seconds. Easy explanation for it crumbling straight down.

Most people didn't see a plane. They just saw explosion of the towers. Thermite is expensive, and there are too many issues like the scintillation of video taken by those caught in the pyroclastic cloud. That cannot be easily explained by anything except for alpha radiation. Please. I'm begging you. Just watch the videos if you haven't already and then judge for yourself.

BULL SHIT
Get the fuck out of here.

Most people that espouse the thermite theory cite that it was brought in from a Japanese specialty company, and that it was of the nano-packed form. You have shown me the price of normal thermite.

They didn't even need it on every floor. Just one or two of the middle floors so a collapse would start. The top half of the building falling a floor height onto the bottom half would be enough momentum to start pancaking each floor in a chain reaction.

How can you explain the fact that the heat wave burned/melted cars at upwards of 500 meters away, yet paper next to the cars remained unburnt. Neutron radiation readily explains this phenomenon. What is your explanation?

The ground where the buildings stood was several thousands of degrees Kelvin for 2 months after 9/11. There is not enough energy in several thousand tonnes of thermite to do this. You cannot cleanly melt/vaporize thousands of tonnes of granite with that much thermite. Lastly, the thermite would stink. If you have ever worked with it (at least the non-nano kind), you would know that the residue has an unmistakable strong foul odor. This was not reported on 9/11.

Why do you think they had to dump millions of gallons of water onto the ground, even after it straight up rained several times.

...

Reported for Godlikeproductions tier shilling

What the fuck are you on about?

Over 1 month after the nukes went off, the ground temperature was still 150 degrees Celsius.

archive.is/QgbJb


I am not saying that thermite wasn't necessary as well. They had to prepare the building for the nuke.

...

1810.928 K

Thanks for the bumplock nigger

since you seem interested and its now bumplocked

youtube.com/watch?v=pWG89zJrRH4

I don't like Judy Woods, but I'll watch it. She cites all of the evidence for normal tactical nukes, then makes interesting claims about non-existant directed energy weapons from outerspace. She seems hardcore CIA. But again, I'll watch it.

I feel like a lot of trouble could be saved if people like OP would just watch one of bin laden's interviews or read Michael Scheuer books on him. Bin laden wasn't a plant or a mad man.
Understanding the people behind these events really brings closure and actually helps avoid future happening.
I also thought Dylann Roof was a false flag until I watched his confession on youtube.
That being said I do think the Israelis knew beforehand.

OP is legit. Special Atomic Demolition Munition:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition

fuck off shill, the kikes perpetrated this, it is well known and has been documented extensively.

That car is not "melted" though. Large areas of paint are still intact and legible.

Why didn't thousands more people die of radiation poisoning if this was nuke?

archive.is/WAriT

Deep bone cancers like multiple myeloma only occur in the young with exposure to ionizing radiation. Most of the radiation was absorbed by the steel in the building. Fe can take two neutrons and still be stable. That's why they whisked all of the steel away. You could detect it with a mass spectrometer, not a Geiger counter.


Fuck off retard.

hmm, something weird about that car, how is one end burned but the other is fine?

It was not planes, not thermite, and not nukes. The real answer is
>"DUSTIFICATION"

911 witnesses talking about the secondary explosions.

Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and
run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about
planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof
that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence
we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address
this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what
could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario
poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that
they were planes.

Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to
tell the story. What could go wrong?

1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.

Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice.
The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting
trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were
there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that
proves they were there."

Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary
witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.

This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the
object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or
whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting
missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute
window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV -
using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts
the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because
everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get
a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because
once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV
replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that
they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their
belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned
out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement
saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* -
the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of
oblivion.

This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they
unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly*
what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who
tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in
their face.

What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available
between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and
everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the
second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.

In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who
said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which
of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.

So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor
inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.

Please just kill yourself.

Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has
been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined
exactly fits with the documented record of the events.

Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the
people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people
actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not
high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is
overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't
enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence
factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be
easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have
lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and
denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole
world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most
would eventually come to believe that themselves.

So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and
doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst
some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious
problem.

Now to the other problem.

Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is
exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled
denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps
knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with
the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks
very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the
strategy of using real jets.


Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have
been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the
documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3
years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how
wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.

Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.

This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots
2) Remote control them.

The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this
list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of
such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.

Remote control.

Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -
sub-choices.

1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from
somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.

Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with
passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create
potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced
likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.

Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control
a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft
with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane
won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its
wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage
on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the
Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.

Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it
would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing,
which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.

Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would
be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any
problems associated with the alternative scenario.

And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the
aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the
aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue
workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam,
and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage
before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.

And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it.
How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers.
This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates
two more sub-choices.

1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no
survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them
off before they do talk.

2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon
system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when
the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get
enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what
the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before
the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the
18 minutes between the two tower strikes.

These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing
as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the
towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be
survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real
crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in
the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry
about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the
same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane
misses its target.

And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash,
you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut
up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for
sure.

In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which
means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up,
involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure
can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before
the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses
could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized
researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.

As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical
nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft,
and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily
suppressed by a compliant media.

In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible,
because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a
successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies
everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to
the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts
trying to tell people what the video shows.

The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by
the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk
when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as
opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely
event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave
clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing
missiles and firing them at NY.

This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane
hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.