Evidence 2: Controlled demolition? Nukes?

B\Note the absence of debris of 267 stories of buildings

Note the absence of debris

In the last post, concerning understanding of evidence, I highlighted how Dr. Judy Wood proved (a word I usually avoid)  that the Twin Towers could not have “pancake” collapsed in 2001. Ergo, the official explanation given us by NIST of their demise is false.  What we saw that day happened too fast and left too little debris behind. It was not pancake collapse.

Given the impossibility of pancaking, there are several other theories around about what happened that day. The so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” has latched on to them. The biggest purveyor of misinformation on the subject is a group called “Architects ad Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” That group claims to have 2,200 members, but I’d have to see the list to believe it. I do know that if you mention the name “Dr. Judy Wood,” they will boot you out the door.

Alternative theories advanced by that group and others are that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, nanothermites, nuclear bombs, mini-nuclear bombs, and mini-neutron” bombs.

  • Controlled demolition cannot be, as there was not enough debris left that day. There should have been thirty stories or so left behind as we see in earthquakes. Instead, there was but one or two stories worth. Where did the rest of the buildings go? (A side issue, that the buildings “pulverized” as they “collapsed,” but that would require that the kinetic energy used to pancake be used instead for pulverization. It cannot do both.
  • Nanothermites. This theory, advanced my Steven E. Jones, posits that a substance used by the military and industry to cut steel was used in sufficient quantity to cause what we saw that day. The sheer volume required, truckloads, would have taken weeks or months to put in place. When used it burns extremely bright and hot. Again, we are missing heat and light in the building’s demise. The sections of steel beams for the most part do not show any indication of cutting. In a building made of aluminum and iron, aluminum and iron residue, which also makes up thermite, would naturally be present. As Dr. Wood says, presence of those two metals in the debris is no more significant than finding chocolate chip cookies. Neither nanothermites or cookies brought the buildings down. Again, not enough debris.
  • Nukes of all varieties: Missing from Ground Zero that day were two essential elements indicating nukes in use – bright flashes and heat. Whatever process brought down the building was a cold one. The dust cloud that rolled out did not kill anyone. A pyroclastic flow from a volcano or nuke is quite deadly. That one was not. People were covered with dust, but did not suffocate or die from heat.
  • Given the absence of extreme heat and bright flashes of light, another theory advanced is that the buildings were brought down by “mini-neutron” bombs. The problem is that no one seems to know if such a thing even exists. It appears to be a made-up weapon used to explain the absence of heat and light flashes.

But there is one signature left at Ground Zero that indicates a some sort of nuclear process. That is the presence of tritium, a hydrogen isotope. Enough was there to indicate a nuclear process – but all the other evidence rules out a hot process.

This is where the above-mentioned Steven E. Jones plays big, the next chapter tomorrow.

About Mark Tokarski

Just a man who likes to read, argue, and occasionally be surprised.
This entry was posted in American terror, False flaggery and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Evidence 2: Controlled demolition? Nukes?

  1. steve kelly says:

    As one who grew up in a town founded by Wm. Penn, this piece of propaganda sent a chill down my spine. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/opinion/stop-revering-magna-carta.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

    A tell from the all-mighty NYT, and perhaps a clue revealing more of the long game being played by the architects of the 9/11 hoax.

    Like

    • I am not sure I disagree with the content of that piece, though my history of that time is very weak. Another revered document, the Declaration, projected the blame for slavery on King George, and yet another, the Constitution, allowed slavery to continue to exist even as it was on its way out in the mother country. I have long harbored a suspicion that part of the impetus behind the revolution, in addition to taxes and tariffs, was feat that slavery might be endangered.

      But I do not know. Just vague.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s