see it here:
September 11 Revisited
September 11 Revisited
___________________________________________
"BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."
"BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT."
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
dugoboy |
another expose' movie about 911 |
Lead | |
|
see it here:
September 11 Revisited ___________________________________________
"BUSHCO aren't incompetent...they are COMPLICIT." |
|||
et in Arcadia ego |
Re: another expose' movie about 911 | ||
|
Heavy duty phsyics presentation..
|
|||
yesferatu |
Any discussion in the vid about a small thermonuclear | ||
|
device used to bring down the towers?
I think there are compelling reasons to argue for it. This is what I mentioned earlier and no one discussed...is small thermonuclear device an embarrassing woo-woo issue that is not discussed? Like "holographic planes"? Just curious to know why it is woo-woo to consider a small thermonuclear device. Like I noted, the "dredlock" monstrous brown streamers were a puzzle (for me) until the equation of thermonuclear explosive(s) was presented. In point of fact the "dreds" anomalies had never been addressed in ANY of the extensive reading and studying I have personally been acquainted with. Maybe there is another explanation. Like to hear it. Also, another odd thing that always bothered me but never had any explanation for was the photos of the tower where the top of the tower is clearly seen at a good 20-30 degree angle of pitch and yet "it righted itself" to fall in the footprint. What is remarkable is that it did not fall as a monstrous chunk, but simply vaporized with the rest of everything into powder - there was no longer a chunk of tower falling away from the rest of the tower. It simply went poof with everything else. Can anyone tell me why it is foolish to take the thermonuclear tack, or else explain why it is up there with holographic jets theories. Thanks. Here is that link again www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm I have an audio issue, so can't watch the vid just yet. |
|||
greencrow0 |
Re: Any discussion in the vid about a small thermonuclear | ||
|
For over a year now, I have tended towards the view of a small 'bunker bomb' beneath each of the towers.
It is the only explanation that accounts for the vaporization of the concrete...rendering it into fine dust. GC |
|||
et in Arcadia ego |
Re: Any discussion in the vid about a small thermonuclear | ||
|
I rule out thermonuclear due to the lack of an EMP signature. Could be wrong here, but I imagine there would also be some form of visible bowshock as well..
|
|||