Sunday, February 23, 2014

9/11 Why Nuclear and Why Not Conventional

 
 
14 hours ago · Edited

Some of you know I am strongly supportive of the conventional, controlled demolition theory with the footnote, "some 'behind the counter' technologies or concoctions used." I hope you'll share this with with as many as you can and inviting explosives experts, both military and industrial to the conversation. Let's keep the heat on these 2nd generation 'paperclip' scientist who committed this atrocity of the ages. Thanks folks. Keith
Like · · Get Notifications · Share

  • Norma Rae and 5 others like this.
  • Keith Kampschaefer The biggest problem I have with Nuclear weapons is the radioactive contamination that it leaves behind. Calvin Raven Eagle do you have anything that would explain how they could have use nukes and not receive and uprising about radiation levels?
    14 hours ago · Like
  • Atahan Ganduu Wait who are we talking about and what did they do?
    13 hours ago · Like
  • Keith Kampschaefer No, and I have NOT read your MOUNTAIN data regarding your hypothesis. Is everything piled high to be considered equitable content?
    13 hours ago · Like
  • Atahan Ganduu I just wish I knew what you are talking about
    13 hours ago · Like
  • Keith Kampschaefer If you have a comment addressed to someone specific, please include at least a first name to cut down of the confusion of who is taking who. Thank you. I assumed Calvin was talking to me after i asked about nuclear radiation. I don't think the radiation part was answered unless I missed something.
    13 hours ago · Edited · Like
  • Tracy Lowtemp Blevins I myself swallowed and breathed a lot of the WTC fumes, and I don't have cancer. And cancer rates are not skyrocketing in the Ground Zero neighborhood. This is because inhaling iron particles doesn't give you cancer. It gives you scarred lungs.
    5 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Kim Mantenga I like that OP Keith Kampschaefer. I'm with you !
    5 hours ago · Like
  • Maxwell Bridges Dear Mr. Keith Kampschaefer,

    Conventional controlled demolitions have several issues in being able to account for the evidence.

    First of all, destruction is one level of planning and implementation, while "overkill pulverization" is another and is a logistics hurdle in the short time bomb-sniffing dogs took holidays in the days preceding 9/11.

    Second, the brisance (    Brisance is the shattering capability of a high explosive, determined mainly by its detonation pressure) to achieve such pulverization from chemical-based explosives and incendiaries would have very loud. A nugget of truth from Dr. Sunder of NIST is that such would have been deafening at 1/2 a mile, yet we have no reports of survivors and witnesses suffering damaging hearing loss.

    Third, the duration of under-rubble hot-spots need to be accounted for. Sure, the 200,000 gallons of diesel fuel under the towers was available, but there's a contradiction between alleged heat and fresh air sources under the pile and how long it could burn so reportedly hot. The presence of unspent-from-original-purposes chemical-based explosives/incendiaries does not mathematically extend how long improbable diesel-fueled fires burned.

    //
    52 minutes ago · Like
Posted by at 1 comment:

Friday, February 21, 2014

What 9/11 Anti-truthers Love Most and the Defense of Judy Wood

What 9/11 anti-truthers love most and Defense of Judy Wood

    • Dan Plesse What anti-truthers love most is TEXT, Summaries, word games, they don't like visual recording of the evidence or radio broadcasts of any kind. Why because the real world has zero supporting evidence for them. Judy wood was a giant reminder to look at the evidence. The above video contains zero visuals of 9/11 and that's why Ivan Flores enjoys it so much. The problem with deniers is the same problem lairs have which is they not sure what to deny or lie about. Notice how many "debunkers" never seem to show anything, its all one big wall of TEXT.



    • Ron Morales Dan, stop referring to debunkers as "anti-truthers." That's not an accepted label and a violation of rule #1.

      And you're attacking a straw man. What we love most are actual facts supporting claims. What so many truthers love to do is blindly repeat m      yths just because they heard other truthers make the claims (such as in their favorite source: Youtube videos made by amateurs who don't know what they're talking about and who make unsubstantiated claims) and didn't bother to spend five minutes of Internet research to fact check the claims.
      13 minutes ago · Like
    • Ron Morales "Why because the real world has zero supporting evidence for them."

      Right, that's why the vast majority of actual experts disagree with you.
      9 minutes ago · Like
    • Dan Plesse The "actual experts" are actually MORE interesting in their own position, job titles, getting more jobs and maintaining themselves then actually anything else. The agreements are out of fear and it just your basic corruption and the lemmings that follow are just following basic herd instincts again out of fear.

      So what do you fear the most, Ron Morales?
      2 minutes ago · Like

    • Ron Morales And what's that picture supposed to prove?

      I and many other debunkers have provided much more than text. You truthers repeat your "free fall" myth and we show you video of the actual collapse of the North Tower that proves that the collapse was not re      motely near free fall. You truthers claim that the WTC collapses were just like classic controlled demolitions and so we show you video of actual controlled demolitions that include the loud explosions of demo explosives that are not contained in any video of any WTC collapse. You truthers claim that a building cannot collapse straight down without the weakening of lower floors or without explosives so we show you video of Verinage collapses which are straight down rapid collapses without the use of explosives or the weakening of lower floors. You guys claim that there should have been large chunks of planes at the Pentagon or Shanksville so we show you video of a jet pulverizing when crashing at 500 miles per hour into a wall.

      And what do you guys do? You hand wave at 2000 alleged architects and engineers in a blatant appeal to authority fallacy while ignoring the vast majority of experts who disagree with you. You cite papers published in truther blogs by guys who can't get them published in any real science or engineering journals while ignoring the dozens of papers supporting the consensus view that have been published in real science and engineering journals.

      The notion that you guys rely on visible evidence and we just rely on text is laughable bullshit and you know it Dan.
      14 minutes ago · Like

      • Ron Morales "The "actual experts" are actually MORE interesting in their own position, job titles, getting more jobs and maintaining themselves then actually anything else. The agreements are out of fear"

        Right Dan. That's why the vast majority of relevant experts IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES also support the consensus explanation. That's why truthers can't get a controlled demolition account published in any peer reviewed science and engineering journal IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, including in countries HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES. The Russian propaganda ministry (AKA Russia Today) has been pushing 9/11 wackjob conspiracies in order to embarrass the American government but the funny thing is that not a single Russian science journal or science journal from anywhere in the former Soviet Union has published a controlled demolition account of a WTC building.

        Is the entire world afraid of the American government Dan Plesse? Are Russian engineers ans scientists hiding under their beds and afraid to speak the truth about 9/11 because they fear the American government Doug?

        That's really a pathetic rationalization for why the vast majority of the science and engineering community laughs at truther mythology Dan. They do so because truther mythology is contradicted by basic science, logic, and a mountain of evidence that truthers routinely ignore because it contradicts their cherished conspiracy theory that for some reason they emotionally really want to believe.
        53 minutes ago · Edited · Like · 1

    • Dan Plesse Are you not still using TEXT? It looks like a giant wall text to me.
      a few seconds ago · Like
      Dan Plesse Ron Morales fear and corruption knows no borders. The same applies in person A here as person B someplace else. Peer reviews journals are out growth of more corruption.

      James Millette didn't go the peer review route.

      The chip below was excluded from James Millette and should have been the only chip studied.

      How many people in your mythical world bothered globally to study the dust samples? hint it around ZERO. How many people studied the lava rocks at Ground Zero. According the NYPD Museum no one from science community has bothered to look therefore your new God of the "science community" is long dead!

      The mythology is clearly the concept of the "science community" as a whole. They don't speak truth to power.

      " Do you have a problem with reading?" Do you have a problem seeing? and backing up your claims.

      Your TEXT wall is never seems to be backup with anything. I will therefore disregard your TEXT walls until YOU bring forth some kind supporting materials.

      My Witness btw blew your sound theory out of the water. Your reply to that? Nothing. Case closed.
      about a minute ago · Like

      • Ron Morales "fear and corruption knows no borders. "

        facile nonsense. Why the hell would experts in foreign countries, particularly countries unfriendly to the US, be afraid of the United States. You can't explain why your theories are laughed at ALL OVER THE WORLD.
        6 minutes ago · Like
      • Ivan Flores Harrits paper had no peer review. He only paid $800 to get his "journal" passed and the editor quit when she found out about Benthams shady practices
        5 minutes ago · Like

        • Dan Plesse Ron Morales I am going to have ask now for supporting materials or your replies will be disregarded. You keep producing TEXT without backup. Assume no more replies from me until YOU CAN backup something UP! As Ivan Flores also has to backup his claims or his TEXT wall will junked as spam.
          a few seconds ago · Edited · Like

Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Search