"N" Word now being Used to describe WTC explosions

[bvonahsen]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>With no evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon available to the public, some 9/11 researchers claim a DU tipped missile, launched by a weaponized UAV, like the Global Hawk, struck the Pentagon. The Global Hawk followed the missile into the building and was destroyed leaving behind only its most durable parts, such as the engine parts and parts of its landing gear.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I guess UAV's these days have 757 landing gear in addition to 757 turbine engines like those found at the pentagon site and seen in photos just about anywhere. That's one mighty big UAV, probably about the size of a.... 757. <p></p><i></i>

[Sweejak]

Two doc files, some pics in the second one I've never seen.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.angelfire.com/planet/tommodern/Woolworth.doc">www.angelfire.com/planet/...lworth.doc</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.angelfire.com/planet/tommodern/New_9-11_Pics.doc">www.angelfire.com/planet/...1_Pics.doc</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[yablonsky]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>757 landing gear in addition to 757 turbine engines like those found at the pentagon site and seen in photos just about anywhere<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>could you source this, just pretending you are talking to a naive newbie (palyed by me).. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=yablonsky>yablonsky</A> at: 9/13/06 1:47 am<br></i>

[Sweejak]

Here is a pretty good one on the Pentagon.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://home.planet.nl/%7Ereijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm">home.planet.nl/%7Ereijd05...ns_est.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

That's a fantastic summary of the Pentagon.<br>Notable were the questions that still remain.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[blanc]

if nuclear were used at wtc what would be the perimeter of 'safety'? all manhattan at risk? any evidence of wider cancer cluster or pre cancerous conditions? <p></p><i></i>

[FourthBase]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>www.angelfire.com/planet/...1_Pics.doc<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>That link isn't working.<br>I want to see those pics! <p></p><i></i>

[Sweejak]

Go to<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.angelfire.com/planet/tommodern/">www.angelfire.com/planet/tommodern/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>All his links download as .doc files<br><br>Here is one of them.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/9541/odd1cb2.png"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>After viewing the new video that was just released (forgot the name of it) and comparing with this pic I think that this smoke is from the second plane and I think it is going down, not up.<br><br>On edit;<br>Damn, smoke generally rises, but I mean to say that the streamer, the smoke that appears as a shaft, is the result of something going down, not up.<br><br>And another pic. Not sure what I think about this one. Especially what looks like huge debris flying out. <br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/934/odd2zb4.png"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sweejak@rigorousintuition>Sweejak</A> at: 9/13/06 3:00 am<br></i>

[greencrow0]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sweejak@rigorousintuition">p216.ezboard.com/brigorou...sintuition</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Sweejak<br><br>Anglefire would not allow those pages. Any chance of linking them some other way? Thanks.<br><br>gc <p></p><i></i>

[heyjt]

It would only take five minutes with a hand-held geiger counter to find out.<br> I don't buy it. <p></p><i></i>

[sijepuis]

deleted my comment, as it was too far ot. mes excuses.<br><br>deserves a separate thread. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sijepuis>sijepuis</A> at: 9/13/06 9:45 am<br></i>

[greencrow0]

Evidence<br><br>The evidence has to be explained in order for the case to be made or dismissed.<br><br>account for the pulverized concrete and pools of molten metal by presenting a logical scenario.<br><br>Explain this phenomena some other way.<br><br>You have to go where the evidence leads.<br><br>There is an uptick in diabetes and lymphoma in New York.<br><br>Both can be caused by radiation poisoning.<br><br>Explain them some other way. <p></p><i></i>

[DireStrike]

Lymphoma has other causes besides nukes. It's been around since before the 1940s. Diabetes certainly has other causes.<br><br>It would make no sense to use nukes, and besides the video clearly shows the towers collapsing from the top down. Depleted uranium makes absolutely no sense. The only reason the ptb would use nukes at all would be if they wanted us to find out that the plane story was bullshit.<br><br>As for the pools of molten metal, there are plenty of other substances that could have caused that, like thermate.<br><br>I certainly hope there was nothing nuclear in the area - I went to school 5 or 6 blocks away, from about 99-02. They kept us away for like 6 months after 9/11, but... <p></p><i></i>

[erosoplier]

This: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/H-device.htm">www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/H-device.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> is the most detailed argument for the use of nuclear devices that I've come across so far - ironically titled "WTC hydrogen bomb theory refuted" - it was linked to in the last thread where the subject of nukes was touched on. I'd really like to see evidence that people who rule the idea out here have actually read it. It does address a lot of the questions that are being asked on this thread.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[DireStrike]

I was liking that article until I got to this:<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br><br>7) Need. If plastic explosives, thermite and maybe thermobarics get the job done, why mess around with the nuclear stuff? (Many do not even consider the claim that potential energy alone could explain the observed destruction to be surprising enough to protest it, so how likely is it that there were devices of even greater destructive power in the towers?) <br><br>A single non-radioactive smaller-than-pineapple device reduces the need of explosives by more than<br>a quarter (I'm talking thousands of charges being saved). It helps to solve the problem of very strong<br>core columns near the bedrock and the need to use very heavy charges. It also creates a deep <br>mystery –the crime scene is more difficult to analyse.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>He didn't answer the question at all... unless he's saying that these mini hydrogen bombs are non-radioactive? Ridiculous, and it would still be easy to set up regular charges. He then continues with a totally unrelated paragraph, perhaps intended to cover up the lack of substance in his answer.<br><br>I also agree with this afterwards:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There are no people to whom it would be a good idea to tell about this theory first. <br>It does not convince anybody who isn't already convinced. <br>It represents an unfortunate tendency in the area of alternative explanations to 9/11, the<br>desire to propose ever more exotic hypotheses. <br>A hydrogen bomb is to the "bombs in the towers" group of theories what the "no-plane"<br> group of theories is to the larger 9/11 truthseeking: a noise factor that harms the more <br>well-founded claims. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>It would take quite some research to corroborate the claims of this one anonymous internet expert. <p></p><i></i>