The information and research here is not about chemical reactions, but atomic level reactions. It includes patents, video proof, and debunks the misinformation being put out by others like ae911truth.org. The simplest explanation is usually the truth. There was no exotic thermite, jet fuel, explosives, etc that destroyed over 100 stories of steel, office furniture, huge concrete steel reinforced floors, etc. EVERTHING was turned to dust by simply striking the target with mass. That mass was neutrons produced by a 4th generation nuclear fusion reaction. No big explosions, no fire... simply the production of neutron's. The future energy was available years ago. The patents where created years ago. The tech was used on the towers.
https://twitter.com/paulmuaddib61/status/1187020428943990786
http://thereal911report.com/
Sort: Top
[–] monsterdoggie 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The shills are downvoting.
[–] ThreeBladedKnife ago
How does this theory coalesce with Silverstein's "pulling" of Building 7?
[–] justjakk [S] ago
The towers where likewise pulled. Building 7 didn't even have jet fuel. No building like that is going to free fall, unless you remove the support structure. It too, was deliberately destroyed and most likely the same weapon. So, after seeing 2 impossible towers free fall for no apparent reason, it wouldn't take much grey matter, that 7 was going to free fall also. He may also have known beforehand what had 2 be destroyed and why and who even?
[–] ACatIsFineToo ago
"The simplest explanation is usually the truth."
"Everything was simply destroyed by neutron bombardment from a fusion rector."
No, the simplest explanation is that Israel and their agents in the US government worked together to create a causus belli for war in the middle east.
[–] justjakk [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
What does that have to do with the research of "HOW" the towers fell. The research does not attempt to nail down who or why. Although, Paul has discovered many connections with the patents, tests, etc that do implicate certain people.
[–] ACatIsFineToo ago (edited ago)
Because trying to divine how is, in my opinion, missing the forest for the trees. You wind up with everyone arguing about whether it was holograms or neutrons or thermite or missiles and the people who did it sit and laugh at you.
If you know someone committed murder, debating if it was done with a rifle or a pistol or a slingshot isn't really that material to the situation at hand.
Also, most of the claims made on that website you linked are complete misunderstandings of physics. An example, since so many claims are made that addressing them all would take hours: "q-switching" in lasers is done to create high intensity pulses, while lowering the average power dissipation. Power = energy * time. If time goes down more than power goes up, the energy transfer decreases. Pulsed lasers are used for a variety of applications that require precise amounts of energy delivered to small areas with high intensities. There are a host of physical issues that make scaling the technology to "building destruction" impossible regardless of your budget. The systems used in fusion research are the size of a football field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Ignition_Facility The system in question fires a 500 terawatt pulse for "a few" picoseconds. (let's say 10.) 500TW10Ps = 500x10^12W10x10^-12s = 5000 joules of energy. That's around the muzzle energy of a 300 winchester magnum - not known for its building destroying capabilities.
Edit to add: For reference, the latent heat of melting of 1kg of iron is ~250 kj/kg. It would take 50 shots of the NIF to melt a kilogram of iron. A major success of the NIF facility was that it lowered the cooldown time for each shot to ~4 hours.
Or put memetically: Jet lasers can't melt steel beams.
[–] Scablifter ago
Neutrons? Electron clusters.
[–] derram ago
https://archive.ph/2qw7b :
This has been an automated message.
[–] Scablifter 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
4th generation nuclear fusion my arse. Dr Judy Wood is the one to listen to, not this man.
[–] justjakk [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Did you even LOOK and read his research? He is in complete and total agreement with Dr. Judy Wood. So you sir, are a joke.
[–] justjakk [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
So tell me what weapon was used to accomplish what Judy shows us? She hasn't stated or shown ANYTHING about what weapon was used.
[–] Scablifter ago (edited ago)
Take your pick.
https://tesla3.com/ken-shoulders/?fbclid=IwAR30NA5pGX7_d05qvEMB91qcZXOylt9P5q7ssM2N9ZHy-p8qF52UVr5qisY
https://mathscholar.org/2019/03/lenr-energy-science-or-pseudoscience/?fbclid=IwAR0Do8SHMVGrU8EdNdo5bl1BM7uLGlO3wtUQCVa6RJn634IAyLpfDMgAJjo
http://www.tuks.nl/Mirror/frankgermano_net/blackbox.htm
[–] justjakk [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Judy shows only that everthing turned to dust. I saw nothing in her videos that explains HOW that happened. Only that it DID happen.
[–] ZombiClown ago
I agree, the explanation by DR wood and this narrative are the same, although some of the this narrative is contradictory , I.E the damage that occurred blocks away. its contradicts the idea that somehow it was a reaction to something contained IN or close to the building.