Conspicuous In Its Absence
For some odd reason, Greg Jenkins leaves out nuclear energy as a source for the energy that was required to demolish the WTC1 and WTC2 towers.
I think his criticism is fair that there is an energy deficit problem for the use of DEW, but why not even MENTION nuclear energy as a possible alternative?
I think his criticism is fair that there is an energy deficit problem for the use of DEW, but why not even MENTION nuclear energy as a possible alternative?
posted by spooked at 11:30 AM
5 Comments:
doesn't Jenkins endorse Salter and Hoffman's views? spook, done, thanks...
I wouldn't lend any credit to his energy deficit idea. There's no reason to think some of the HAARP/scalar/Tesla DEW isn't very energy efficient. A weapon which causes molecules to dissociate by hitting some eigenvalue of the atoms themselves might not require a tremendous amount of power. In any event, the military DOES have access to all the power they need to blow things up. Tesla claimed in the 1940's he could split the Earth itself in two. The Soviets and Defense Secretary Cohen have made similar comments. I'm not sure you'd need very much energy at all to blow up the WTC with such a weapon. In any event, the military has all the energy it needs as that pathetic excuse for a spook Jenkins knows full well. His argument that the new weapons don't work as well as the old weapons is as stupid as it sounds. They've had 60 years to IMPROVE the destructive power of weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And idiot Greg Jenkins thinks people will believe that the latest and greatest weapons cannot take out a single block of Manhattan real estate? Where's Colbert when you need him? COME ON!
Fred
Why not even mention it?
Because it is an idea you pulled out of your rectum, Spooky! That is about as worthwhile a suggestion as can be.
NOBODY of any worth or with any credibility says there are any residual effects or evidence of nukes.
Fred-- your points are well taken, but I still would like to have more idea of what KIND of energy was used and where it came from. At least with nukes, you know there was more than enough energy and where it came from.
4:26, are you serious? or a paid shill/spook/operative?
www.wtcnuke.com
www.nucleardemolition.com
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm
a LOT of people think nuclear technology was used...
how else do you explain the Thermal Hot Spots? presence of Barium, Strontium, Tritium?
#22: Reports of cars exploding around the WTC and many burned out wrecks could be seen that had not been hit by debris. Fusion energy (heath radiation and the neutrons) caused cars to ignite and burn far from WTC site.
Post a Comment
<< Home