You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
My title is a question based on the current "mainstream" consensus that the buildings were demolished in a controlled fashion using nano-thermite, and it's that nano-thermite and the impact with the ground that accounts for the lack of sufficient debris (it was pulverised somehow - it's not there). The problem is that there isn't enough evidence of heat (needed to vaporise) or seismic activity (needed to crush).
To save you the rest of the video (thanks for actually watching and responding btw), the premise is that the destruction was caused by some kind of free energy beam (think Tesla) that caused the structure to mostly "dustify" without heat or pressure.
[–]realmonster0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
going by her logic we know that the "what" is there was a WTC and then there wasnt a WTC. so here were talking about the "how", but this method of thinking doesnt mean you ignore everything in the "why" category because youre going to have to come up with answer for that "why" and if you cant, you have to take a step back and consider the other "how"s. its especially relevant here because of how similar the event was to exactly what we were being told. at that point "why?" is a pretty important question.
ill admit that if we are ONLY looking at "how" then xyz future weapon is a possibility as much as controlled demolition and jet fuel totally being able to melt steel beams in a giant crucible. but, if the answer to "why" is just testing a new future weapon, one which would necessitate many industry revolutionizing technology breakthroughs then why would they be sitting on their asses with this tech for 20 goddamn years doing literally nothing with it.
that "why" doesnt make sense, you have to go back and look at the other options.
edit: i want to add that when mt st heckens erupted the top of the mountain wasnt plopped down in a field, it disintegrated, and that was earth made rock, not man made sticky confectioners sugar that gets stiff when it dries out
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Unchosen1 [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
My title is a question based on the current "mainstream" consensus that the buildings were demolished in a controlled fashion using nano-thermite, and it's that nano-thermite and the impact with the ground that accounts for the lack of sufficient debris (it was pulverised somehow - it's not there). The problem is that there isn't enough evidence of heat (needed to vaporise) or seismic activity (needed to crush).
To save you the rest of the video (thanks for actually watching and responding btw), the premise is that the destruction was caused by some kind of free energy beam (think Tesla) that caused the structure to mostly "dustify" without heat or pressure.
[–] realmonster ago (edited ago)
going by her logic we know that the "what" is there was a WTC and then there wasnt a WTC. so here were talking about the "how", but this method of thinking doesnt mean you ignore everything in the "why" category because youre going to have to come up with answer for that "why" and if you cant, you have to take a step back and consider the other "how"s. its especially relevant here because of how similar the event was to exactly what we were being told. at that point "why?" is a pretty important question.
ill admit that if we are ONLY looking at "how" then xyz future weapon is a possibility as much as controlled demolition and jet fuel totally being able to melt steel beams in a giant crucible. but, if the answer to "why" is just testing a new future weapon, one which would necessitate many industry revolutionizing technology breakthroughs then why would they be sitting on their asses with this tech for 20 goddamn years doing literally nothing with it.
that "why" doesnt make sense, you have to go back and look at the other options.
edit: i want to add that when mt st heckens erupted the top of the mountain wasnt plopped down in a field, it disintegrated, and that was earth made rock, not man made sticky confectioners sugar that gets stiff when it dries out