Nuclear Demolition of the WTC Complex
The "anonymous physicist" has written the definitive scenario for nukes at the WTC.
It is a must read. I think his logic is very powerful and his scenario is the best we have to explain the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11.
To quote:
Finally, about the radiation issue, please see this article.
It is a must read. I think his logic is very powerful and his scenario is the best we have to explain the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11.
To quote:
It is hoped that people never forget that this horrific event was nothing less than a wanton, nuclear holocaust perpetrated against nearly 3,000 people by their so-called government. And used as an excuse to murder countless more thousands of human beings who had nothing to do with the events of 9/11/01.
Finally, about the radiation issue, please see this article.
posted by spooked at 5:06 PM
12 Comments:
wow the kink, the simultaneous upward and downward disintegration, the outward explosions of chunks of perimeter columns, the speed in which each tower was pulverized, the vaporization of much of the steel, the hiding away of human remains and the rapid sending away of the remaining steel, the odd toasting of vehicles, the seismic data, the incredible lingering hot-spots...
all of this can be easily accounted for by mini-nukes.
excellent job by "anonymous physicist"!
what is up with all the other physicists?
^h
it was a simple property redevelopment project that the govt parlayed with the help of the media into an expensive and endless war of terror.
"anonymous phycisist (sic)"? wow!
If I put that shit out on the internet I'd stay anonymous as well.
Use spellcheck, Spooky. You don't need any more reasons to question your credibility.
What is misspelled?
Of course, anonymity is desirable when talking about taboo topics and horrible crimes.
@9:17 sure is very convincing - the rebuttals just don't get any better than that!
If I put that shit out on the internet I'd stay anonymous as well.
A perfect comment coming from someone posting anonymously!
"What is misspelled?"
Are you really that fucking stupid?
I noticed you changed it, though.
Dictionary.com is your friend, Mr Wizard:
No results found for phycisist.
Did you mean physicist (in dictionary)?
whether he misspelled the word physicist or not is surely not important - wait, maybe you should spell-check the word wether - boy am i stupid if i can't even spell whether...i mean wether...damn you spell-check!
i think that the fact that the wtc were obviously destroyed by high energy devices, and that an actual physicist, w(h)ether anonymous or not, has felt strongly enough to point out that todays' generation of nukes does account for every one of the many oddities that were observed with the towers' demise is much more significant than any spell-check action!
Yes, I misspelled "physicist" and didn't notice it at first and then later changed it. It's all quite thrilling, isn't it?
Now, about the heart of the matter-- is the misspelling of "physicist" mean the article is wrong?
is the misspelling of "physicist" mean the article is wrong?
boy are you a numbskull!
you should have said does the misspelling...
ha ha i guess that means that 9/11 was *not* any kind of inside job after all...
I read somewhere that there is good reason to believe that many, if not most, of the "SHILLS" (at least the amateur ones) are possibly shut-ins that are physically challenged in one way or another, have plenty of time on their hands, and their major form of entertainment is writing hate comments on the internet. One reason for their attitude (or so it has been suggested) is fear of losing their disability income, which they feel might be threatened by people that don't support the Government 100% in everything it does.
'Anonymous Physicist' says:
"I conclude that likely several nukes per tower were used—- but totaling 1/10th of a kiloton per tower.
"
1/10th of a kiloton is a 100 tons of TNT. That's a lot of material, but not an impossibly large amount. Modern conventional explosives could produce the same effect with even less material.
It is possible to smuggles tens of tons of material into a building. We don't know it is possible to build a 'fission-free fusion device'. Why introduce this additional assumption?
Post a Comment
<< Home