Reply to topic  [ 114 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
9/11 -- the smoking gun 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9015
Reply with quote
Post 9/11 -- the smoking gun
Image

The evidence is in, and it appears to be incontestable.

Quote:
"It is out of the question that all of these correlations which are the signature of a nuclear explosion could have occurred by chance. This is impossible." -- source

The chemical evidence for nuclear fission occurring on September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center is finally seeing the light of day.

Quote:
"The presence of rare Trace elements such as Cerium, Yttrium and Lanthanum is enough to raise eyebrows in themselves, let alone in quantities of 50ppm to well over 100ppm. When the quantities then vary widely from place to place but still correlate with each other according to the relationships expected from nuclear fission, it is beyond ALL doubt that the variations in concentration are due to that same common process of nuclear fission.

When we find Barium and Strontium present, in absolutely astronomical concentrations of over 400ppm to over 3000ppm, varying from place to place but varying in lockstep and according to known nuclear relationships – the implications are of the utmost seriousness."

The implications are clear -- the United States government lied, because it was complicit in the crime. The media cooperated, because they are controlled by the powers that be. Justice demands that the government be immediately shut down and dismantled, and that the media be seized and restructured. Will it ever happen? Not likely, because there is no sense of justice left in the brainwashed and "medicated" American public. They are sheep, only fit for herding and slaughter. As long as it is not their turn to be slaughtered, they will graze on the GMO food-stock contentedly, lap up the neurotoxic water, and breathe in the chemically laced air. And when it is their turn to be slaughtered, they may try to bleat out a cry for help, but no one will pay any attention.

Quote:
"This type of data has probably never been available to the public before. It is an unprecedented insight into the action of a nuclear device."

Not that it matters to the sheeple.

Quote:
"September 11th, 2001, was the first Nuclear event within a major United States city and a global financial center of the world and this is the biggest secret of this century, until now."

Typical American: (Yawn) Yeah, right. What do I care...

Image

Welcome to the real world. Welcome to insanity.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Jul 14, 2012 11:11 pm
Profile

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:04 am
Posts: 303
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
That article from Veterans Today is very good but, I wasn't able to open the link in the article to the irrefutable evidence. Not that it would matter that much to me anyway as I would not be able to interpret or confirm the irrefutable evidence. (I might be part sheep-lol)

The link that wouldn't open:
Here is unequivocal and irrefutable physics, chemistry and mathematics proof that 911 was a nuclear event:
http://www.datafilehost.com/download-b128ac41.html

Very good post and description as to why the sheeple won't see this as a wake-up call smoking gun.

Disclosure/smoking gun on 9/11 for the sheeple would be something like a video of a secret meeting between Cheney/Bush/Rummy caught planning and talking about 9/11 or celebrating their 9/11 feat. Or something along those lines, if you get my drift.


Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:25 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9015
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
That article from Veterans Today is very good but, I wasn't able to open the link in the article to the irrefutable evidence.

The link goes to a page where you can download a PDF file with the evidence. I downloaded it myself (since evidence like this often disappears) and linked directly to my copy using the second link labeled "source".

Quote:
Not that it would matter that much to me anyway as I would not be able to interpret or confirm the irrefutable evidence.

You sell yourself short. You are more capable than you believe.

Quote:
(I might be part sheep-lol)

Aren't we all....

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:37 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
Nuclear fission is legerdemain.

The best evidence is for unconventional controlled demolition.

One wouldn't expect stepwise destruction (as was observed) on the twin towers with any kind of nuclear reaction. The initial explosion would have obliterated a large chunk of the top structure, not to mention any planned sequence of stepwise explosions. This was simply not observed.

As well, Building Seven has the signature of classic controlled demolition. Question: if they took care of the Twin Towers with nuclear devices then why would they try a different methodology on Building Seven? The concept of using multiple methodologies to effect the destruction of three tall skyscrapers seems remote at best.

Fact: they wired Building Seven for classic controlled demolition. So the most plausible assumption is that they wired the other two skyscrapers for controlled demolition ... but planned a nonstandard top-down destructive sequence to account for the plane impacts way up high.

Nuclear fission dull's Occam's Razor and smokes his Bong.

Pax Veritas

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:09 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9015
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Nuclear fission is legerdemain.

The best evidence is for unconventional controlled demolition.

Those two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Unconventional controlled demolition could be accomplished with unconventional miniaturized nuclear devices that behave differently from anything you currently associate with nuclear devices.

Quote:
Nuclear fission dull's Occam's Razor and smokes his Bong.

Occam's Razor is a severely flawed concept. It assumes simplicity is the preferred answer when we clearly live in a world that is complex beyond our comprehension. The world is not simple, and to assume the simplest explanation is correct is just more insanity.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:30 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Nuclear fission is legerdemain.

The best evidence is for unconventional controlled demolition.

Those two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Unconventional controlled demolition could be accomplished with unconventional miniaturized nuclear devices that behave differently from anything you currently associate with nuclear devices.


Maybe so, Chico ... but nuclear devices coupled with controlled demolition is not so plausible when one considers that controlled demolition techniques use aluminothermic reactions. Also, the perpetrators planned on having the area reconstituted (e.g. middle of New York is prime real estate) ... so - Galen Winsor notwithstanding - the idea of nuclear byproducts being deposited on prime real estate would be much more serious than the original asbestos problem in the Twin Towers. It is not logical to think that prime real estate
and the de facto owners of that real estate ... would participate in plans for its destruction using methods that would undermine the reconstruction.

In any event, I debunked Dmitri Khalezov's theories using his own arguments (on Nexus and also Avalon, IIRC).


Quote:
Quote:
Nuclear fission dull's Occam's Razor and smokes his Bong.

Occam's Razor is a severely flawed concept. It assumes simplicity is the preferred answer when we clearly live in a world that is complex beyond our comprehension. The world is not simple, and to assume the simplest explanation is correct is just more insanity.


I interpret Occam's Razor as dissuading overly/unnecessarily complex explanations when simpler explanations exist. Not simplicity ... but simpler explanation. The complex world can be broken down into simple pieces to be analyzed. By contrast, adding nuclear fission into the 9/11/2001 mix ... is like breaking down a complex world into complex pieces to be analyzed.

Another thing to remember, hidden esoteric technologies cannot be assumed until the explanation phase runs its course through the known true and tried technologies. To make that assumptive leap into the esoteric - especially from an outsider's perspective - is to prefer fancy over reason.

Pax Veritas

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:02 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9015
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Maybe so, Chico ... but nuclear devices coupled with controlled demolition is not so plausible when one considers that controlled demolition techniques use aluminothermic reactions.

I think you overlook a few things, Zook. The first is how strong and solid the WTC towers really were. They were perhaps the strongest skyscrapers ever built, with redundant weight-supporting twin skeletons (the core and the exterior metal lattice). Bringing those towers down with aluminothermic reactions only would have been a tremendous challenge. The perpetrators of 9/11 needed a fool-proof contingency plan that would reduce those towers to dust if conventional demolition should prove unsatisfactory. This would sufficiently destroy the evidence of their involvement as well, ensuring plausible deniability. Note that this is why Building 7 was also destroyed, as I suspect the control center coordinating the demolition was located there.

Quote:
Also, the perpetrators planned on having the area reconstituted (e.g. middle of New York is prime real estate) ... the idea of nuclear byproducts being deposited on prime real estate would be much more serious than the original asbestos problem in the Twin Towers.

You are thinking inside the box, Zook, by assuming all nuclear bombs are "dirty" with undesirable byproducts. That is not the case. Fusion bombs are inherently cleaner than fission bombs and are likely well developed. Even the non-classified information they allow us to have clearly shows the direction of nuclear development that was occurring more than 50 years ago.

Quote:
In any event, I debunked Dmitri Khalezov's theories using his own arguments (on Nexus and also Avalon, IIRC).

Maybe you did, and maybe you didn't. Remember that you are working from a position of brainwashing and incomplete information, just like me.

Quote:
I interpret Occam's Razor as dissuading overly/unnecessarily complex explanations when simpler explanations exist.

My argument still stands. Preferring a simpler explanation is no guarantee that the explanation is correct.

Quote:
The complex world can be broken down into simple pieces to be analyzed.

Humans do this because they have have no choice. Our puny brains require us to simplify complex systems in order to arrive at a basic comprehension.

Quote:
Another thing to remember, hidden esoteric technologies cannot be assumed until the explanation phase runs its course through the known true and tried technologies.

You cannot ignore the world we live in, where sociopaths rule and secrecy is their standard operating procedure. Hidden esoteric technologies are "de rigueur" for our times. Given that, to dismiss the esoteric in favor of the conventional is extremely short-sighted. Question everything.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Jul 16, 2012 5:53 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Maybe so, Chico ... but nuclear devices coupled with controlled demolition is not so plausible when one considers that controlled demolition techniques use aluminothermic reactions.

I think you overlook a few things, Zook. The first is how strong and solid the WTC towers really were. They were perhaps the strongest skyscrapers ever built, with redundant weight-supporting twin skeletons (the core and the exterior metal lattice). Bringing those towers down with aluminothermic reactions only would have been a tremendous challenge.


Not aluminothermic reactions alone but in concert with military-grade explosives (e.g RDX). I look at the stepwise collapse of the Twin Towers and find the notion of nuclear fission as an element in the destruction, highly improbable (unless there is esoteric nuclear technology yet to be introduced that can effect stepwise collapse ... suitcase nuclear bombs on each floor?? ... seems more sci-fi than reality). Once again, the destroyers of the prime real estate are also the reconstruction overlords. Why would they contaminate their own real estate? So now, you're obliged to buttress your original argument with the argument of clean nuclear fuels. And things gets more improbable with each new explanation to defend the previous one. Heck, nuclear fusion would have a better argument than fission.

Quote:
The perpetrators of 9/11 needed a fool-proof contingency plan that would reduce those towers to dust if conventional demolition should prove unsatisfactory. This would sufficiently destroy the evidence of their involvement as well, ensuring plausible deniability. Note that this is why Building 7 was also destroyed, as I suspect the control center coordinating the demolition was located there.


Adding destruction redundancy would increase the complexity and hence double the risk of discovery. Heck, while we are in the conjectural corridor, let's give the energy-beam crowd a seat at the table. Now we have
triple the complexity and triple the risk of discovery.

Quote:
Quote:
Also, the perpetrators planned on having the area reconstituted (e.g. middle of New York is prime real estate) ... the idea of nuclear byproducts being deposited on prime real estate would be much more serious than the original asbestos problem in the Twin Towers.

You are thinking inside the box, Zook, by assuming all nuclear bombs are "dirty" with undesirable byproducts. That is not the case. Fusion bombs are inherently cleaner than fission bombs and are likely well developed. Even the non-classified information they allow us to have clearly shows the direction of nuclear development that was occurring more than 50 years ago.


Your original argument was in favor of nuclear fission, Chico, not fusion. You haven't defended fission with any palpable evidence. So the prudent thing to do is scrap nuclear technology altogether as a causative source - at least until evidence points that way.

Remember, bringing the perpetrators to justice does not require a theory of destruction so much as it does a preponderance of evidence collected from all three nodes of the attacks. A preponderance that effectively scuttles the official theory of boxcutters, bedouins, and hijacked Boeings ... and opens a real investigation.
But even short of a real investigation, the preponderance is still binding in the court of public opinion.

To wit, open the minds of the people with stuff they understand and which is easily observable ... don't haze it up with esoteric theories in a cart before the horse. The actual details of the attack will come out with a real investigation and not before ... and in the absence of real investigation, the details will never come out ... but the preponderance is sufficient to open the minds.

With that in mind. National Security Alert is a good place to start the preponderance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o



Quote:
Quote:
In any event, I debunked Dmitri Khalezov's theories using his own arguments (on Nexus and also Avalon, IIRC).

Maybe you did, and maybe you didn't. Remember that you are working from a position of brainwashing and incomplete information, just like me.


My arguments are available on Nexus and Avalon. I basically exposed inconsistencies in Khalezov's claims. That effectively scuttles those claims. You're welcome to disprove my expositions of Khalezov. I don't think you can. At some point, brainwashing and incomplete information have to be understood as the givens, and recourse to deeper reserves of intellect must be sought. No disrespect intended. In short, not all of us are at the same depth in the rabbit bore. If you take the time to read Khalezov's claims, you too will find the
inconsistencies.

Quote:
Quote:
I interpret Occam's Razor as dissuading overly/unnecessarily complex explanations when simpler explanations exist.

My argument still stands. Preferring a simpler explanation is no guarantee that the explanation is correct.
Quote:
The complex world can be broken down into simple pieces to be analyzed.

Humans do this because they have have no choice. Our puny brains require us to simplify complex systems in order to arrive at a basic comprehension.
Quote:
Another thing to remember, hidden esoteric technologies cannot be assumed until the explanation phase runs its course through the known true and tried technologies.

You cannot ignore the world we live in, where sociopaths rule and secrecy is their standard operating procedure. Hidden esoteric technologies are "de rigueur" for our times. Given that, to dismiss the esoteric in favor of the conventional is extremely short-sighted. Question everything.


Not dismissing it. Just not entertaining something that has yet to be established. I question everything that I see. That which I don't see, I can't really comment on with any authority. So when I do comment on something, expect that I have studied it enough to give a critical assessment of it. Here, I give my disclaimers as required within the narrative sequence of my arguments ... so none is ever explicitly required.

Pax Et Justitia

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:57 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9015
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
UncleZook wrote:
Adding destruction redundancy would increase the complexity and hence double the risk of discovery.

Not when thorough destruction ensures plausible deniability. Contingency plans do increase complexity, but intelligence agencies do contingency plans as a matter of course.

Quote:
Your original argument was in favor of nuclear fission, Chico, not fusion.

Nuclear bombs are complex. Old technology used variable materials and multi-stage designs mixing fission and fusion to produce customized results. Current technology is surely vastly more refined and way beyond both public knowledge and public expectations.

Quote:
You haven't defended fission with any palpable evidence.

Did you just dismiss all the evidence in the PDF file for nuclear fission?

Quote:
Remember, bringing the perpetrators to justice does not require a theory of destruction so much as it does a preponderance of evidence collected from all three nodes of the attacks. A preponderance that effectively scuttles the official theory of boxcutters, bedouins, and hijacked Boeings ... and opens a real investigation.

Agreed. I believe we are already there. A real investigation by government will never be realized since the perpetrators were the government. That leaves us in an unfamiliar position.

Quote:
With that in mind. National Security Alert is a good place to start the preponderance

I agree.

Quote:
My arguments are available on Nexus and Avalon. I basically exposed inconsistencies in Khalezov's claims. That effectively scuttles those claims.

It's entirely possible that Khalezov's claim are deliberate misinformation or poorly developed. That is completely independent of the possibility that novel nuclear explosives were involved in the demolition. The evidence in the PDF argues that certain nuclear decay paths can account for the very proportions of rare element residues found in the WTC dust.

Quote:
At some point, brainwashing and incomplete information have to be understood as the givens, and recourse to deeper reserves of intellect must be sought.

You make it sound so easy, that we need only dip into our deeper reserves of intellect. Heck, what are we waiting for? :giggle:

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:24 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 9/11 -- the smoking gun
Smoking Gun <----------- this is at the crux of my disagreement with your argument, Chico.

Nuclear fission is very unlikely ... but there is a remote possibility. We on the outside looking in can neither prove or refute it to a satisfactory degree of certainty. We can, however, dismiss it or admit it with our level of knowledge. Khalezov's can be exposed as disinformation by inconsistency in his arguments. That brings us to the question of the smoking gun.

Claims of a smoking gun in this case are not supported.

To be a smoking gun, better evidence is required. Evidence such as presented in National Security Alert ... or the WTC7 standard controlled demolition signature ... or the free fall collapse times of the Twin Towers ... or the presence of aluminothermic reaction byproducts residue (including photo evidence of lingering high temperatures weeks after the event) ... or put options on American Airlines stock ... or the stand-down orders by Cheney ... or the impossibility of Hani Hanjour's purported acrobatic manouevres of a Boeing jetliner ... or the fact that some purported hijackers were seen alive after the event ... etc.

Pax Cognitas

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Tue Jul 17, 2012 10:15 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 114 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.