Only on nuts that can’t understand the most basic principles of physics and see the Boogyman around every corner.
Yes, if nukes had been used the containment buildings would be gone and everyone within a mile would have been vaporized.
Did you know that radiation can be found in the environment everywhere on earth?
Stay out of the water and be very, very afraid, those mutant sharks are coming specifically for you.
Or, they just can’t accept the fact that the US government can be just as dastardly as any other. It’s an uncomfortable reality.
2 Likes
No. Nukes nowadays come in different shapes and sizes.
You can hide a nuke in a briefcase for specific purposes.
No you can’t, even the smallest nuke ever produced would require a very large suitcase or trunk.
Nukes also leave behind a very specific isotpic ratio in the debris unlike anything produced by a meltdown. Had nukes been used the buildings would have been utterly destroyed, everyone in the blast radius incinerated, those that managed to avoid the heat would be liquefied where they stood as the blast wave progressed.
The smallest nuke ever produced was the W54 which produced the equivalent energy of 10 tons of TNT. That is approximately the same energy as produced by the “Daisy Cutter” which had a blast radius of a quarter mile.
That much energy would have shattered the containment buildings to dust, not just blown the sheet metal off and damaged the frames and would have killed or maimed everyone within a half mile plus leaving a very clear radiation signature specific to nuclear weapons.
The isotopic ratios of nuclear weapons are so specific you can trace the origin of the bomb right back to the specific processing centers that produced the uranium or plutonium fuel.
Quit peddling bullshit.
hAss-bara-tits
Maybe not but it sure has to be heated some.
Will you please stop pretending that you know fuck all abt steel, construction or even physics. My 3yr old granddaughter can see that there were NO fires in building 7 - there wasn’t even very much smoke FFS- so what, exactly, caused the steel to weaken?
1 Like
Yet all of the videos and witnesses on the scene saw the first burning in building 7 for days as you have repeatedly been shown.
You’ve also been shown that kerosene which doesn’t burn as hot as jet fuel burns more than hot enough to weaken and even melt steel.
Holy crap. This is insane.
1 Like
Nope the only thing insane around here are hAss-bara-tits and TotalWankeR
1 Like
Even if the video is authentic it looks like she’s discussing the collapse of the 2nd Tower and some producer gave them the wrong building number.
She’s clearly discussing with the tv anchor the Solomon Brothers WTC Building 7. This shows the complicity of the deep state in the UK in the staging of this major bloodletting act that will forever be a curse on the perpetrators, their accomplices and their accesors.
2 Likes
No it simply shows the desperation of the conspiracy nut mentality.
Reporters and producers make mistakes every day. When doing live breaking news those mistakes are all the more frequent.
Yeah, like reporting an event 20 minutes before it happens.
Everyone knew by 2:00 it was coming down which is why they called off the search and rescue units well ahead of time and pulled everyone back several blocks.
The news crew blew it, not the first time and won’t be the last.
Nope they didn’t blow it, Silverstein told them they were going to pull it.
1 Like
No he didin’t, “to pull” was to cease fighting the fires and pull back the units.
Geeze man you are desperate.
They pulled back to avoid an even greater loss of life upon realizing they could not prevent the building’s destruction by continuing to try and fight it.
They simply lacked the water and resources to continue fighting it.
Pathetic excuse from a defender of Zionist criminals.
It’s obvious this monster of a ■■■ said “Demolish the building.”
Why do you insist on constantly fabricating such lies? Is this really the best you can do?
A rabbi speaks the truth about Zionism.
1 Like