Jump to content

Twin Towers Nuked


Haunted Universe
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Doctor What said:

 

Obvious your hero is Simon Shack for coming up with this mad theory, but please do not insult people by suggestion that your 'eyes' are telling you what all should see. My eyes tell me that there were planes, my ears tell me there were planes.  Its a waste of time to discuss this with you as you have previously shown, the battle for truth has had to endure many years of this and others that make truth seekers all look very uninformed.

 

I think nuclear bombs as thread suggests is not even logical or a possibility. I think also that you are hijacking the thread with some off topic things.

 

Lol he's not my hero, but I do appreciate his work. He wasn't the first person to bust the TV footage btw, it was busted as far back as 2004/05. But you're right, it is pointless discussing this with me, unless of course you can provide evidence of plane crashes? You've replied a few times now but have failed to provide any. As for the battle for truth having to endure many years of this, what battle for truth? Where is it?! When was the last time you saw anything relating to 9/11 possibly being an inside job on the news?

 

As for being off topic, maybe so, but showing the planes were fake makes the OS of jet fuel and 19 hijackers a load of bollocks, so it therefore must follow that the towers were demolished and the "how" is for any new investigation. And as I've stated previously, if there is a new investigation, and that investigation doesn't look at the TV footage, then it's not worth a wank.

 

https://911planeshoax.com/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, mishy said:

He wasn't the first person to bust the TV footage btw, it was busted as far back as 2004/05. But you're right, it is pointless discussing this with me, unless of course you can provide evidence of plane crashes? You've replied a few times now but have failed to provide any. As for the battle for truth having to endure many years of this, what battle for truth? Where is it?! When was the last time you saw anything relating to 9/11 possibly being an inside job on the news?

 

As for being off topic, maybe so, but showing the planes were fake makes the OS of jet fuel and 19 hijackers a load of bollocks, so it therefore must follow that the towers were demolished and the "how" is for any new investigation. And as I've stated previously, if there is a new investigation, and that investigation doesn't look at the TV footage, then it's not worth a wank.

 

All your post is off topic for nuclear bombs at WTC. I am not having the burden of proof. The official story is that it was aeroplanes. All the people on the planes are dead and all of the 4 aeroplanes are gone. All evidence says it is planes except for people like you who think they have opinions that are evidence. I am not concerned with any battle for truth just the battle for dis-information that these crazy theories are making.

 

You talk about the how the towers were demolished, but this thread is titled as one theory for this. Not having planes and using nuclear bombs is my idea of a best way to make sure nobody new takes notice. If you are thinking no investigation will occur why do you make your claims off topic here and why do you keep voicing them, who to are you trying to reach?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doctor What said:

I think nuclear bombs as thread suggests is not even logical or a possibility

 

Oh, but its totally plausible an aluminum flying tube causes each tower to collapse in the same manner and crumble like a sand castle. A 500,000 ton steel structure gone with the wind that day in roughly 11 seconds. You're fucking dreaming.  Not to mention the ENERGY that's SPITTING out huge steel girders that evaporate as they fall. How do you explain this?  That my friend, is not logical or a possibility. You could 'try' and crash a plane into a tower like that a billion times over and never would we see what happened on 9/11.

 

The towers didn't just collapse did they, they were turned into very fine dust. That requires something that has a shit ton of ENERGY to do so. Use your brain. Or stop shilling for the Zionists. 

 

I look forward to the hilarious bullshit 9/11 "looking back" articles in the Daily Mail etc tomoro with not even a slither of a mention of how 9/11 was suspicious. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Doctor What said:

All evidence says it is planes

 

You're a joke and a liar. There is ZERO evidence of any plane at any crash site. Wheres the 80 plus videos including the gas station video that was confiscated of your precious plane crashing into the penta-con? Why are they shitting themselves and not releasing the footage? 

 

7 hours ago, Doctor What said:

who to are you trying to reach?

 

WHO are you trying to bullshit? Give it up,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its the usual merry go round of bullshit witnesses, the people on the planes and their families, etc etc. Look at this tumbling dickweed crisis actor, failing hard at convincing everyone he saw a plane, and also seems to know why the towers fell. The CIA prob kicked his ass for doing such a lame acting job.

 

Crack open a beer and have a good laugh at this knob head:

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whodathunkit - Off topic thread hi-jacking, abusive, antagonistic and of course useless.

 

An interviewee tells us he saw it all and "he's a plant" because of "reasons" - must be faaaaaake.

Some guy on the street who wouldn't have been able to see the plane anyway unless he was on the right side and looking up at the split second it occurred - he must be right because of "reasons".

 

And anybody who disagrees with no-plane disinformation must be "shilling for the zionists" or a "joke and a liar". 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

 

Yeeeeeeh.

 

 

"do not make any personal insults or irrelevant one word answers." Off topic, rude and insulting, and now one word answers - you have a full house. 

 

You have been hoodwinked and sucked into a ridiculous self-reinforcing nonsensical argument. The planes were not "hollow" aluminium tubes and they carried colossal kinetic energy. 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020710082205.htm

 

The smallest part of the collapsing tower which gave way at the impact point carried 549,172,400,000 joules of potential energy. I often wonder how anyone can quote physics when the physics show the whole thing as inevitable. Explain how the explosion at the plane impact point went inwards and bent the outer columns in that direction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gone Fishing...
9 hours ago, Haunted Universe said:

And here we have an eye witness say no plane it was a bomb, and the interviewer shits himself and doesn't want to know. Strange don't you think?

 

 

Being on the ground he wouldn't have 360 degree vision of both buildings. 

He could very easily be mistaken. He might have seen the explosion come out of the opposite side of where the plane went in. 

It would have looked very much like just an explosion from the far side, wouldn't it? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Basket Case said:

Being on the ground he wouldn't have 360 degree vision of both buildings. 

He could very easily be mistaken. He might have seen the explosion come out of the opposite side of where the plane went in. 

It would have looked very much like just an explosion from the far side, wouldn't it? 

 

 

True, but my point is the news reporter paid zero notice of him. The news is supposed to be objective isnt it (altho we know they arent). Yet they give the blatant shill a full interview with men in suits monitoring him and verbally signalling when the interview should end. Plus the other suite who commented he couldnt say who he was. Totally not suspicious. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gone Fishing...
40 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

potential energy

 

How would you work out the potential energy of the planes? 

Assuming they are travelling at least 450mph..? (500mph has been mentioned a lot) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

"do not make any personal insults or irrelevant one word answers." Off topic, rude and insulting, and now one word answers - you have a full house. 

 

You have been hoodwinked and sucked into a ridiculous self-reinforcing nonsensical argument. The planes were not "hollow" aluminium tubes and they carried colossal kinetic energy. 

 

You've interpreted it how you saw fit. Its my thread so im hardly hijacking it.

 

'Yeeh, 'collossal kinetic energy' that implodes on itself leaving no trace what so ever. Where did the planes go? Did they just explode inside the tower and vanish? Makes sense. 

 

So if they werent hollow then they contained passengers, seats, luggage, delicious peanut snacks and giant engines, they too went poof and evaporated. Same with the black boxes. 

 

go back and look at the photo i posted of the impact explosion. WHERE is your plane?

 

Where is the evidence of any plane AFTER the so called crashes? You have zip. I can not see or find any evidence of planes crashing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

549,172,400,000 joules of potential energy.

 

LOL

 

55 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Explain how the explosion at the plane impact point went inwards and bent the outer columns in that direction.

 

Thats piss easy, the explosives were designed to do that hence the laughable plane hole that looks like its been cut with an angle grinder. How do you explain the perfectly straight square and rectangle hole? 

 

The problem the perps had however were the outer column strips blown outwards INTACT. So how is this possible if a plane smashed through it?

 

Theres more Indication of no planes. Those phoney videos arent fooling anyone. 

 

You keep saying there were planes, so WHERE did they go after the impact? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

You've interpreted it how you saw fit. Its my thread so im hardly hijacking it.

 

Hey, I have no problem with it, just pointing it out. I'll not mention it again. No planes discussion it is.

 

9 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

'Yeeh, 'collossal kinetic energy' that implodes on itself leaving no trace what so ever. Where did the planes go? Did they just explode inside the tower and vanish? Makes sense. 

 

The planes entered into buildings at maximum speed. That is an enclosed space much bigger than the plane. It broke into tiny pieces and burnt to a crisp.

 

FHPD4LU5EVX3F7XTX32DQ4WNM4.jpg

That was a plane that collided on the runway after landing - not at top speed. Kindly stop using this "plane disappeared" argument as though it means something.  Here is a picture sequence of an impact test.

 

szYwdTb.jpg 

 

Smithereeens is the term. Tiny bits that then proceeded to get burnt in raging fires and minimum accessibility for fire crews.

 

9 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

So if they werent hollow then they contained passengers, seats, luggage, delicious peanut snacks and giant engines, they too went poof and evaporated. Same with the black boxes.

 

The larger steel components and titanium alloys survived the collision. We can actually see one being ejected. Landing gear pictures exist at the Pentagon. The black boxes - I have a question for you. Please answer, it's kind of like the missing WMD in Iraq.

 

Since you claim an astonishing amount of work was done to fake this whole thing, why didn't they just fake some black boxes? Fairly simple to do.

 

9 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

go back and look at the photo i posted of the impact explosion. WHERE is your plane?

 

In teeny weeny bits, burnt to a crisp inside the building - exactly as you would expect - it went in at 500 + mph and carried on going in that direction.

 

Another question, please answer.

Above is a picture of an impact test where a jet hits a wall and breaks into tiny bits, why shouldn't the 911 plane do the same?

 

9 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

Where is the evidence of any plane AFTER the so called crashes? You have zip. I can not see or find any evidence of planes crashing.

 

You hand wave away the pictures of plane wreckage and say it was planted. How many people to plant it all, how were they paid, paper trail etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Basket Case said:

 

How would you work out the potential energy of the planes? 

Assuming they are travelling at least 450mph..? (500mph has been mentioned a lot) 

 

We would assign kinetic energy to the Plane because it is in motion.

 

Find weight of the plane as estimated. Find speed of the plane as estimated.

 

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/physics/kinetic.php#:~:text=In classical mechanics%2C kinetic energy,* 5 m%2Fs2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

LOL

 

Evasion noted.

 

30 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

Thats piss easy, the explosives were designed to do that hence the laughable plane hole that looks like its been cut with an angle grinder. How do you explain the perfectly straight square and rectangle hole? 

 

Right, magic explosives noted. None of it is perfectly straight or rectangular.

 

What Hit WTC2? Another Look at the Second Plane

 

NorthTower-OutlineOfPlaneEntryInFacade93

 

30 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

The problem the perps had however were the outer column strips blown outwards INTACT. So how is this possible if a plane smashed through it?

 

Images please and I will answer.

 

30 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

Theres more Indication of no planes. Those phoney videos arent fooling anyone. 

 

They aren't phoney and they fooled you completely. 

 

30 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

You keep saying there were planes, so WHERE did they go after the impact? 

 

I keep showing you very simple to understand visual aids - explain why you have trouble with them.

 

Now answer properly, explain exactly how an explosive device sends the exterior of a building inwards.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

True, but my point is the news reporter paid zero notice of him. The news is supposed to be objective isnt it (altho we know they arent). Yet they give the blatant shill a full interview with men in suits monitoring him and verbally signalling when the interview should end. Plus the other suite who commented he couldnt say who he was. Totally not suspicious. 

 

 

The news reporter was aware that it was a plane. Besides he thanked him for his observation and moved off. He didn't "shit himself".

 

Can you please, give me a follow up question to "yeah it was an explosion". Consider that another request you seem to be accumulating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

You hand wave away the pictures of plane wreckage and say it was planted. How many people to plant it all, how were they paid, paper trail etc.

 

Is this Carlos re-incarnated? Again with the paper trail bullshit. Which wreckage is this? The tiny engine (that is the wrong kind by the way) planted in a street? Great detective work there Watson. 

 

Photos of the Penta-con show three exits holes 3 buildings in. Game over. Please do bullshit your way out of that one. 

 

There is no substantial wreckage proof from 4 planes each made of millions of parts at any crash site. 

 

First you give me substantial proof of:

 

1) plane wreckage debris in manhattan

 

2) Shanksville

 

3) the Penta-con

 

4) shanksville-all the best with that one. 

 

Until then you are blowing smoke up my ass. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

So if i hit a Lucky Larry pinata with 59484473834&48,009,999,,00,000

joules of energy with a baseball bat, do the gold coins inside magically dissapear? 

 

Hey, great question. Not relevant though and not transposable to the real thing.

I imagine the kinetic energy would carry the bat straight through it slicing it in two. It wouldn't have enough resistance to release hardly any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im going to the laundrette to dry my tin foil hat and straight jackets, and to scare the muzzled normies by waxing lyrical about the matrix we are living in.

 

Be back in about an hour. I do hope to see those photos and concrete proof of giant flimsy planes and its innards staring back at me.

 

cheers and good luck on your quest brave sir knight. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Haunted Universe Your continued evasion of the questions is most telling. You are doing the gish gallup two step thing. What are you afraid of.

 

5 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

Is this Carlos re-incarnated? Again with the paper trail bullshit.

 

Evasion noted once again. Do you have any paper trail for any single thing you claim? It's a fairly biog standard request. Surely you have something?

 

5 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

Which wreckage is this? The tiny engine (that is the wrong kind by the way) planted in a street? Great detective work there Watson. 

 

Planted? By whom? Do you have evidence for that? My name is not Watson.

 

That erroneous and often parroted notion has been thoroughly discussed here:

 

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explaining-the-9-11-murray-st-engine-from-flight-175-n612ua-that-hit-wtc2.9022/

 

Kindly address the content of that rather than the standard ad-hom dismissal.

 

5 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

Photos of the Penta-con show three exits holes 3 buildings in. Game over. Please do bullshit your way out of that one. 

 

No need for any "bullshit".  The landing gear made the hole. Hence the discovery of lots of bits close by.

 

00Pentdebris-full.jpg

 

f5958b23722353835fa2281afbc2a32e.jpg

 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/

5 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

There is no substantial wreckage proof from 4 planes each made of millions of parts at any crash site. 

 

Nor should there be. You are repeating the same claim without responding to any of the presented responses.

Do not Hijack threads with the same questions if a Moderator or other member has already answered them;

 

Smithereens. Tiny bits burnt to a crisp. Respond to the presented points and kindly stop evading virtually everything I am posting.

 

5 minutes ago, Haunted Universe said:

First you give me substantial proof of:

 

1) plane wreckage debris in manhattan

 

2) Shanksville

 

3) the Penta-con

 

4) shanksville-all the best with that one. 

 

Until then you are blowing smoke up my ass. 

 

Same claim yet again. Address the questions that explain this.

 

How much simpler do I need to make it for you?

We have video and pictures of impact testing showing breakage into tiny pieces.

We have images of numerous ejected plane pieces.

We have images and video of burning planes showing that impacts and fire at slow speeds result in leaving very little of the plane and THAT is with fire crews right next to the burning plane on the runway after landing at landing speed! Here's a couple more:

 

0721-tripoli-airport.jpg

 

a-burnt-out-british-airways-boeing-747-p

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...