Hydraulics not TNT caused 9/11 twin tower implosion
1 2018-05-31 by NYC_Subway
TNT would be way too loud, obvious, and unpredictable. I imagine they installed hydraulic pistons on each floor that were rigged to exlode This also explains why few people heard an explosion while many didn’t. What they heard were the pressure breaks which as loud as TNT explosives.
30 comments
1 acetylene54 2018-05-31
They used thermite.
1 NYC_Subway 2018-05-31
ya I think you’re right This also accounts for witnesses saying they saw white light and would make sense needing a plane to hit as a distraction to activate it. If no plane hit and you flipped switch would look like it was obviously preplanted.
1 OT-GOD-IS-DEMIURGE 2018-05-31
+1 for thermite, pistons don't have enough oomph to do it
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
[citation needed]
Highly unlikely. It would have still been extremely loud and bright, as well as pretty damn obvious to the people inside the building.
1 NYC_Subway 2018-05-31
watch
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
A single fountain of sparks, easily created by dozens of other possibilities. Other than that, there's literally nothing in that video that suggests that thermite was used.
1 NYC_Subway 2018-05-31
is that so? The video clearly showed how STEEL BEAMS are sliced through with ease with a little thermite. Explains why the towers fell, the beams were cut through like in the video!
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
That's a nice claim and all, but as far as I'm aware none of the beams at ground zero were cut. Just because it's possible (ignoring how obvious it would be if it were true) doesn't mean it's probable, let alone what actually happened.
1 Kingdomhearts123 2018-05-31
That's some bold circular reasoning
I applaud your chutzpah
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
Where was the circular reasoning? I'm sure that it is physically possible for thousands of thermitic charges to demolish a building. I don't, however, see the evidence for that theory.
1 Kingdomhearts123 2018-05-31
"Ignoring how obvious..."
Arguing from conclusion/begging the question
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
You realize that I specifically put it in parentheses to exclude it from my argument, correct? That's what "ignoring" means.
1 Kingdomhearts123 2018-05-31
Sounds air-tight to me. Again... I applaud everything you're doing here today.
I think your narrative is winning. I really do.
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
I don't really have a "narrative," per sé, I just don't see any support for the theory.
1 NYC_Subway 2018-05-31
let him talk, the more he says the more he reveals his obvious allegiances
1 FuckHimUpHisStupdAss 2018-05-31
If the whole demo was done exclusively with thermite it would have looked like a sparkler on the fourth of july.
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
If any part of it used thermite that would certainly be the case.
1 FuckHimUpHisStupdAss 2018-05-31
It rules out conventional controlled demolition.
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
I agree.
1 NYC_Subway 2018-05-31
you guys seem awfully intent on refuting all claims of controlled demo. Makes me think that thermite is actually what was used lol. Sometimes it's better to just let us normies continue on with out discussions without trying to redirect as the redirect itself lends credence to the claim were making.
1 FuckHimUpHisStupdAss 2018-05-31
Controlled demo is a given. It's just a matter of how it was accomplished.
1 NYC_Subway 2018-05-31
oops my reply was meant for /u/anothername787
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
It most certainly is not a given.
1 Gdfi 2018-05-31
According to who? The US government claimed no explosive evidence was found, then when asked if they even checked they said no. The people who did check found nanothermite.
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
The people who did "check" found an incredibly common compound and didn't allow anyone else to test their samples, then published their findings in a bunk journal. Why would you trust them more than anyone else?
1 Gdfi 2018-05-31
The department of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen did the analysis of the samples and published the findings in the only places they were allowed to. It's not their fault that most journal are corrupt and refuse to entertain any evidence that refutes the official story.
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
If your argument is that most journals are so corrupt that they could only publish it in a bunk journal, you're going to have to show that those journals are corrupt. If it was a legitimate paper that was properly reviewed, it would be in a real journal.
1 NYC_Subway 2018-05-31
if you listen to many office worker accounts, they describe it as being just that. Some say it looked like the white light you see during NDE's (near death experiences)
1 FuckHimUpHisStupdAss 2018-05-31
Why does none of the video show any bright light then?
1 perfect_pickles 2018-05-31
thermobaric devices, the smoke was witnessed.
1 NYC_Subway 2018-05-31
oops my reply was meant for /u/anothername787
1 anothername787 2018-05-31
It most certainly is not a given.