ONLY Nuclear Bombs and the China Syndrome Fit All the Evidence

[spooked911]

A Brief Summary of the Destruction of the WTC and the High Temperature Aftermath-- ONLY Nuclear Bombs and the China Syndrome Fit All the Evidence

by The Anonymous Physicist

In attempting to ascertain what caused the destruction of the WTC on 9/11/01, and the great heat and molten metal observed for up to six months afterward, one must account for ALL the phenomena involved in WTC destruction, and the aftermath-- and not just one or two factors. Only nuclear bombs and the resulting China Syndrome can account for ALL phenomena observed. The overview and numerous supporting articles on the nuclear destruction of the WTC are here: wtcdemolition.blogspot.com But, at the outset, we should realize that there is an abundance of evidence that the O.C.T. (Official Conspiracy Theory) is quite bogus. For example, sworn testimony from firemen/responders contains their witnessing of loud explosions from the onset of tower destruction. This alone destroys the OCT of gravity-driven, progressive collapse.

A brief summary of the nuclear aspects now follows.

1. First, low yield nukes (mini-nukes or micro-nukes) are a proven fact that the U.S Govt has admitted to since the 1950’s with their Davey Crocket rifle, and more recently with a physicist’s testimony to Congress. It is also documented fact that since the 1960’s, and Project Plowshare, low radiation nukes-- and later neutron bombs-- have been available, and were planned for excavation projects and such. My “many small nukes” WTC hypothesis indicates that numerous low yield nukes went off INSIDE (near the center of) the towers. They vaporized anything near them (via million degree temperatures and/or high neutron flux), but the yield of these micro-nukes was deliberately small enough not to vaporize the outer structure. This also ensured that any radiation was contained during detonation. And Plowshare, and neutron bombs, prove low radiation nukes have been available for decades.

2. MASSIVE EVIDENCE of ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES (EMP) FROM NUKES. This includes the eyewitness, sworn testimony of EMT responder, Patricia Ondrovic (and others). She reported that as WTC1 was beginning to be destroyed, she saw flickering lights in WTC6 lobby where she tried to enter, but was stopped. And just outside at that time, cars caught fire without any visible reason, and one then had its car door explode off of it; and the door hit and injured her as she began to flee the area. Exactly how EMP from nukes did all this is explained here, along with other evidence of EMP during tower destruction from nuclear bombs.

3. DUST PARTICLE SIZE WAS LESS THAN 2.5 MICRONS-- & LIED ABOUT by the Gov’t’s main OCT (Official “Collapse” Theory) engineer/author. You can think of a mortar and pestle, and grinding something large into smaller and smaller pieces. It takes more and more energy input to yield smaller and smaller pieces. A nuclear bomb is known to yield particle sizes down to 10 nanometers. (1 nanometer is 1 billionth of a meter). And Govt scientists had equipment to analyze the WTC dust down to 10-nanometer size, if they wanted to, and should have. Unless they did, and have refused to release this. What they (the U.S. Geological Survey scientists) did was lump together all dust sizes less than 2.5 microns and released this data. (A micron is 1 millionth of a meter, and a thousand times larger than 1 nanometer). Nonetheless, the Govt’s main engineer/author, Z.P. Bazant, numerous times wrote papers that claimed that 10 microns was the smallest sized particles created during WTC destruction, and later collected by USGS scientists. For years he did not cite the work that showed, this. Last year he did cite a reference, and it led back to the 2.5 micron study, NOT to the 10 microns he claimed as the smallest dust particle size! So he flat out committed fraud here. He had to do this as his bogus papers claim that the gravitational potential energy (height times weight) of the towers accounted for the energy needed to create the smallest dust particle size. And there isn’t enough energy from his theory to account for 2.5 micron size dust, let alone the much smaller dust sizes that the USGS did not ascertain or release! The bogus physics and math from Bazant and others is here.

4. MELTED, HANGING SKIN WITHOUT FIRE was reported by at least 4 known WTC survivors. This includes WTC worker Felipe David, whose own words state this occurred without fire, but his story when told by another, has “fire” added. There are also two women who reported (on the “Larry King Show”) that a similar thing happened to them, and they don’t know why, because they too were not in any fire. And there is also a security guard with a similar report. The security guard and Felipe David had this happen to them in the lobby and the sub-basement area of WTC1 respectively. Outside the towers, firemen/responders also felt great heat on their skin without being near any fire DURING TOWER DESTRUCTION. Only the thermal rays of a nuclear bomb can account for this. They go out the farthest when a nuke goes off. And hanging skin was a common occurrence in Hiroshima survivors. Note that the outside firemen feeling heat on their skin (without fire near them) also disproves “DEW”, as they are NOT in the towers nor right under them either, and thus if “directed energy beams did it”, and these must be coherent, they would not diverge and cause heat far from their target! So no “DEW” was involved.

5. SUB-BASEMENT LEVEL, 50-TON STEEL PRESS & HEAVY DOOR VAPORIZED. At the same time as Felipe David’s nughtmare was unfolding, and also in the sub-basement, WTC engineer Mike Pecoraro reports going up a level and seeing that a sub-basement level was in shambles and was “just gone.” Also he states a 50-ton press has also been apparently vaporized, and a 300 pound steel/concrete door has just been left shriveled up like foil. The only things that could do this are the multi-million degree temperatures, and neutron bombardment, from a nuclear bomb. Coupling this with the four survivors who had melted, hanging skin at this same time, we have evidence of blast, high temperatures, neutron bombardment and thermal rays-- all virtual proof of nuclear bomb use.

6. HEAT GENERATION AT THE WTC FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS AFTER 9/11- -THE CHINA SYNDROME AFTERMATH (CSA) (see http://wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com) No heat “lingers” for weeks and months, not alleged jet fuel, not alleged thermite (which would have been used up either in minutes or hours--or during its use as an explosive). We have the documented, witnessed, and well photographed and videotaped great heat and molten metal for weeks, and indeed for up to six months underground at the WTC-- until all radioactive fission fragments were carted away. No heat lingers for that long; this could only have been heat GENERATION. The evidence of great heat throughout much of the rubble pile and even higher temperatures underneath the two towers and WTC7 is massive. It included melted firemen’s boots, even dogs had to wear special boots, a mass of congealed bullets in WTC6 going off weeks later from heat, and many photos of steam emanation from the continual water hosing of the “hotspots” all around the WTC. The China Syndrome HAD TO ARISE because each of the numerous small nukes used up only 1-6% of its fissile material-- which is standard for nukes. The remainder was then available as radioactive fragments, releasing great heat for a long time (until removed), as the half-life of Uranium 235 is 700 million years. And it is likely that there were numerous, redundant nukes employed, and the phenomena of "fratricided" and fizzled nukes may also have occurred as these are common with nuclear detonations. These effects likely further exacerbated the China Syndrome. The radioactive fragments were somewhat dispersed throughout the rubble pile, and in greatest concentration underneath the towers and WTC7-- where water and sand treatments could not readily be employed. Note that the alleged Tritium finding that the Govt released, may be a red herring to fool people to look for top-secret unknown types of nukes, which couldn’t have led to the CSA, which is what clearly occurred. The ludicrous lying (“there never was any heat during or after WTC destruction”) or the poor attempts to create new laws of chemistry and physics by alleged 9/11truthers (“super nanocomposite thermite burns forever”) only shows how desperate the Govt is to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath.

7. THE MISSING PEOPLE, FURNITURE, steel & other contents of the towers. Destruction of the towers vaporized many of the nearly 3,000 people who died, as well as much furniture, steel and other building contents. The medical examiner was unable to find or utilize any strands of DNA for over 1100 people. The rubble pile from the two towers was only a couple of stories high when it should have been several times higher from a “collapse,” or even a conventional demolition. There is much missing mass from the “extraordinarily high temperatures” as fire engineering Professor Barnett declared after examining vaporized steel, that occurred during tower/WTC7 destruction. Nukes vaporize matter near their hypocenter. Thermite, thermobarics, etc. DO NOT. Contrary to what some claim, neither thermite nor thermobarics could vaporize the missing people, furniture, steel and other contents, as detailed here.

8. CLASSICAL GOV’T DISINFO METHODS ENSUED whereby their agents put out supposedly “alternative theories” involving alleged “secret, new technologies” that are either evidence-free and/or impossible. Space Beams/DEW (Directed Energy Weapons), or ludicrous “super nanocomposite thermite burns forever” theories were created by the intel agencies to cover up the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath. (Thermite cools off in minutes or hours.) These “theories” desperately try to claim new phenomena or new laws of physics and chemistry--as does the 9/11 Commission’s ludicrous “findings.”

9. MORE NOW ON THE ISSUE OF RADIATION: The #1 item above showed that the Govt has had mini-nukes, and micro-nukes for decades, and that low-radiation yielding nukes have also been around for decades as well. On the other hand, the great heat and molten metal at, and under, the WTC for up to six months after 9/11, indicates the existence of the China Syndrome Aftermath at the WTC; whereby many responders and Metro New York residents may have been exposed to some radiation from radioactive fission fragments that resulted from the use of the many micro-nukes. We have much indirect evidence of the effects of radiation poisoning among the 40,000 responders who were at “Ground Zero” in the weeks and months afterwards. There have been hundreds of reported cases of blood, lymph and thyroid cancers among responders. These types of cancers frequently arise from radiation exposure, and are much less likely (unlike lung diseases) to arise from inhalation of toxins. Also, the teeth and hair falling out reported by several responders are also standard illnesses from radiation poisoning. These responders’ doctors and lawyers are not telling these people that radiation may have caused their illnesses, because the China Syndrome Aftermath remains one of the Govt’s most closely guarded secrets. However, we can see that the Govt itself was well aware of what it had caused! Standard radiation-lowering methods were employed beginning the very next morning-- 9/12/01! These included water dilution/hosing down and sand/earth covering (and subsequent removal of this sand/earth) of the rubble pile. These procedures continued for weeks and months precisely because the rubble pile, and undergound areas, were replete with radioactive fission fragments.

There is some general information on radiation sources that needs elucidation. Due to absorption and other factors, radiation levels can go down quickly-- unless radioactive fragments (radionuclides) are released to the environment. Unless one is close (like Felipe David, who appears to have received thermal radiation, and not ionizing radiation)-- or the radiation is very intense-- enough distance/air or most materials, will stop most forms of radiation. This assumes one does not inhale or ingest radioactive particles or radionuclides. The underground WTC areas-- which likely had the highest radiation yields (and also heat)-- were off limits to all but a few responders. Also, as Hiroshima studies indicated, it took decades for many cancers and other illnesses to manifest. Note that a Gov’t agency, FEMA, was/is in charge of any radiation data for Ground Zero, and could easily have blocked release of any data that found radiation. The U.S. Gov’t has a long, sordid record of lying about radiation exposure to soldiers and citizens, as noted here when they nuked their own soldiers during “atomic tests”.

Honest people, not in DENIAL, must see the analogy to the Reichstag fire set by the German Nazis, in 1933, in Berlin. This was their seat of almost their entire federal gov’t. And this fire/destruction was used as an excuse to destroy their Constitution, and as an excuse for War on “terrorists,” and then all of Europe. There was one difference with the Nazis, however. They waited till the middle of the night, when there were no inhabitants in the Reichstag building! Of course, that German Gov’t did not admit they did it themselves, but that came out after they lost WWII. If U.S. Govt agencies have certain types of proof that they nuked the WTC, and thus its largest city; does any honest person think these Govt agencies would ever release this data--unless a new Gov’t came about? There is reason to believe that other crucial data such as WTC rubble pile temperature (AVIRIS, 2nd set), and WTC destruction seismic recordings were altered. This physicist hypothesizes that WTC responders AND nearby Metro New York residents and workers, that were exposed either the longest or to certain areas with the “hottest”spots face the risk of getting cancer and other immune disorders from radiation exposure in the years and decades to come. Sadly this will prove the China Syndrome Aftermath in the worst possible way. Private persons and institutions are urged to get and keep statistics on this, as the Gov’t will likely cover this up.

Original post with links here:
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/10/brief-new-summary-wtc-destruction-high.html

[LARED]

1. Spooked, let me be the first to say thank you for this important

post. :yourock:

[jberryhill]

9. I especially like this part

"CLASSICAL GOV’T DISINFO METHODS ENSUED whereby their agents put out supposedly “alternative theories” involving alleged “secret, new technologies” that are either evidence-free and/or impossible."

What can I say, Lared, we paid off all of those people with crazy theories, and Spooked wasn't fooled for one red hot second.

[LARED]

10. That's because Spooked IS the man (or woman), nothing

gets by his (her) keen analytical mind.

[Make7]

2. Has CameraPlanet ... Revealed Its True, Monstrous Nature?

 

Has CameraPlanet-- The Source of Numerous Videos with Impossible WTC Crash Physics-- Revealed Its True, Monstrous Nature?

by The Anonymous Physicist

   <- snip ->

But this claimed “raw visual data” contains depictions of an alleged plane crash into Tower 2, that are absolutely, physically impossible. Many 9/11 researchers have written on the absence of Newton’s laws depicted on these claimed “raw” videos. The thick steel of the towers, when impacted by planes with plastic nosecones and aluminum bodies would have stopped much of the planes from entering the towers. I myself wrote on the missing collapse of the rear of the plane, from the rapidly traveling shock wave down the plane, that would have resulted in real life, when the front hit the tower. And numerous witnesses on scene reported not hearing or seeing a plane. Others, in the area, later admitted they saw it “on TV.”

So the question must arise, did CameraPlanet request people to send in their WTC video only to alter them for public release such that the alterations would match the obvious, pre-made CGI images released on TV, on 9/11? It is interesting that the term “duped” can refer both to fooling a person, and altering photos or videos. Once people sent in their video data, and saw it altered and no longer in agreement with what they saw and the video they took, great fear may have gripped them. 9/11 truthers have also indicated that numerous different videos are really the same one with different overlays. So some of the CameraPlanet crash collection may have come directly from intel agents. But some may have come from innocent people who were duped into believing they were doing good by sending them to CameraPlanet. Of course, there may be some people who saw that their video did not contain the planes, or the impossible crash physics. Some may still have their originals, and due to fear are keeping them to themselves. Others may have sent them to Camera Planet, and are too scared to say anything about the alterations they then saw were made. Some may have been paid off, or threatened, to cooperate with the Gestapo regime, or else.

   <- snip ->

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/12/has-cameraplanet-source-of-numerous.html

[AZCat]

3. Once again the conspiracy has grown to include even more people.

I await the day when either The Anonymous Physicist or spooked911 rewrites their conspiracy hypothesis to include the other person, although it might be much easier to claim it is the set of all people, excluding the author of the hypothesis.

[spooked911]

4. as to the lack of thoughtful rebuttals

I'm glad to see no one found any notable flaw in this piece.

[LARED]

7. That's funny nt

[jberryhill]

12. It means you are right

You figured it out.

You win.

It's over.

How would you like your prize shipped to you?

[spooked911]

13. I don't want a prize-- but I would like people like you to admit

that we're right and then also demand justice.

Is that too much to ask?

[jberryhill]

15. I already said you were right

And, here you go I DEMAND JUSTICE!

Okay, now what?

Who are these "people like you"? You want an army of middle aged balding hippies like me?

[spooked911]

5. RE the 50 ton steel press, all the remarkable direct obervations of WTC engineer Pecoraro

see here:
http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029


The complete WTC Engineer Pecoraro's quote is "The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble, "Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

Sergei Siletzky was a helper at WTC. At the time of the attack, he was attending class at Local 94.


The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said.

They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor."

So in summary, Pecoraro notes:

Machine Shop: GONE

50 ton Hydrauloic Press: Gone

Parking Garage: Gone

300 pound concrete/steel door: on the floor shriveled like aluminum foil

No "acetylene torch" could do this, let alone instantly.

Again the "Anonymous Physicist" stands by his statement that the only thing that could have done all this are the million degree temperature and/or neutron bombardment from a nuclear bomb. Not any conventional explosives, not any ludicrous "DEW" (deep in the bowels of the building) could have done this. And again all the points in the nuke summary must be debated for anyone who proposes a non-nuclear mechanism for WTC destruction and China Syndrome Aftermath.

[LARED]

6. A 50 ton press is about 6 feet tall and looks like this

[JuniperLea]

103. That looks like a 10 ton to me...

Maybe... could be a four-ton. See the floor brackets? No way can those support that much pressure/weight.

[LARED]

105. Send your complaint here

http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=96188

[jberryhill]

8. You do understand that a "50 ton press" does not weigh 50 tons, right?

Seriously, that's an oldie but goodie.

I have a set of "70,000 mile tires" on my car. You may be surprised to find that my tires are not 70,000 miles in any dimension.

The rest of your article is fine, as far as I can tell.

Spooked, old bean, you've cracked the case.

Now that you are done figuring out 9/11, what's your next project?

[AZCat]

11. There's a related SNL skit...

where Captain Nemo keeps arguing with someone that it's 20,000 leagues under the sea, not below the sea. It was very amusing at the time, but I haven't watched it in a long time.

[spooked911]

14. yes, I know

my project now is trying to convince you

[jberryhill]

16. Convince me of what?

You're right, Spooked. You've figured it all I out. I'm convinced. There is nothing more to say.

[SidDithers]

21. Yeah, well my tires are 120,000 km tires...

so they're bigger than yours :)

Sid

[wildbilln864]

23. good grief!

:banghead:

[JuniperLea]

102. Here's a 50 ton press...

I'm looking for the shipping weight... still, how long do you suppose it would take how many men with heavy moving equipment to move this?

[ryan_cats]

104. Amazon is involved too, 50 ton press!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0007D2YJU?smid=A2LM8ZC59IT9RX&tag=nextag-tools-tier3-delta-20&linkCode=asn

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

18. Welcome to the DUngeon

"we 9/11 truthers"

Perhaps you might enlighten the rest of us as to what you believe happened that day.

[wildbilln864]

22. cheers! and welcome to the dungeon. nt

[spooked911]

19. "north tower exploding" video

good narration here, showing the power of the demolition, and thus showing the evidence for nukes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c

[hack89]

20. How much PE did the towers contain

and how much TNT would be required to produce an equivalent amount of energy? I have never been convinced that the truth movement a firm grasp of the physics involved with the collapse of the WTC - perhaps you can disabuse me of that notion.

[spooked911]

24. obviously the towers had a lot of PE

but do people like you have a firm grasp of how extensively pulverized the towers were and how much energy that would take?

Bazant has done some energy calculations, but I have posted articles showing how flawed those calculations are:
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/spooked911/2007_12

The Three Fatal Flaws in Bazant's WTC Concrete Pulverization Calculations and Why His Calculations Really Support Nuclear Demolition

By spooked911


Bazant's WTC concrete pulverization calculations can be found here. Basically, he calculates that 7% of the total "gravitational potential energy" (GPE) is required to pulverize all of the concrete in the WTC towers.

His three fatal flaws are:

1) he significantly under-estimates the size of the particles that result from concrete pulverization (as detailed here, http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-bazants-hack-science-and-wtc.html)-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to pulverize the WTC.

2) he does not take into account the complete pulverization of all interior contents of the towers-- interior walls, furniture, computers, filing cabinets and PEOPLE-- thus significantly under-estimating the energy needed to completely pulverize the WTC.

3) he does not take into account the EFFICIENCY of the "gravitational potential energy" in pulverizing all of the concrete. There is no way this process is even close to 100% efficient! Think about the actual mechanics involved in a collapse: a heavy set of floors is dropping ten feet onto a lower floor filled with interior walls, furniture, and the bottom concrete slab is covered with some padding and carpet. There is simply no way that the floor slab concrete is going to be significantly pulverized in this way. Some concrete will be crushed by breakage of the floors slabs and by steel columns being forced downwards at irregular angles, but it is difficult to imagine that more than 10% of the concrete being crushed in this way, and much of this crushing will not result in micron-sized particles. A heavy weight dropping ten feet onto a furniture and carpet-covered floor is thus going to have an efficiency of concrete pulverization of 10% at most. Not to mention that after a few floors are crushed down, there is going to be a build up of crushed material from the previously crushed floors, which will act as a buffer and decrease the efficiency of further crushing. Thus, to simply equate "gravitational potential energy" with the energy required to pulverize concrete, as Bazant does, is incredibly flawed, bad science.

Some corrected energy calculations would be as follows:

1) extra energy to pulverize concrete from Bazant's alleged 10 micron smallest dust size just to 2.5 micron size, as found in the "EHP study", was calculated with Bazant's equations, by Anonymous Physicist, to have needed 14% of total GPE". This is a VERY conservative assumption because, as explained by Anonymous Physicist, it is very likely a vast amount of even smaller particles were created during WTC destruction, which would require several times more energy than Bazant's 7% (even assuming 100% efficiency of pulverization).

2) extra energy to pulverize interior building contents not including the concrete-- this will use less energy than pulverizing the concrete, as these materials were not as strong on average as concrete, but we can estimate this will still use another 7% of total GPE conservatively to convert these items into micron-sized particles.

3) extra energy required to overcome the inefficiency of concrete pulverization-- conservatively 10 times 14% of GPE-- thus 140% of GPE. For the sake of argument, we will assume that interior building contents are pulverized at 100% efficiency, which is probably not the case, but is the conservative argument. This gives a rough CONSERVATIVE total of 147% of GPE to pulverize the concrete and the interior building contents to micron-sized particles.

In fact, with these three factors taken into account, it should be clear, using conservative assumptions, that the energy required to pulverize the concrete and everything inside the WTC is much greater than the total "gravitational potential energy"-- and this does not even include the massive energy that would be required to destroy the steel super-structure of the towers!

So what would produce this amount of energy, without the impractical course of pre-loading of the towers with thousands of tons of explosives?Nuclear energy.


also--

http://www.bloglines.com/blog/spooked911?id=17

Further Examination of the Physical and Mathematical Hoaxes in Bazant’s Papers
The Case for Fraud is Proven, and a Call To Action
By The Anonymous Physicist

In this post
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-bazants-hack-science-and-wtc.html
I have previously detailed numerous falsifications of physical parameters, assumptions, observations, and circular “logic” employed in the 9/11 “collapse” papers of Z.P. Bazant, et al. Here I will first show that the most basic laws of Physics and even the basic tenets of Mathematics are flagrantly violated by Bazant’s nonsense. And I will also cite several other false assumptions and parameters Bazant used. Let us examine the ludicrous, so-called crush down phase of Bazant, et al. We will ignore, for the moment, the obvious, massive, outward explosions seen on photos and videos, and the resultant evidence-- or lack thereof-- that indicates vaporization of people, furniture, and building structure occurred. Bazant ignores (as he must) that a "gravity-driven" event would never have such near perfect spatial (all around the towers) destruction symmetry. Such near perfect, spatial symmetry violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, commonly referred to as Entropy. Entropy refers to the increased state of DISORDER in naturally occurring events-- which a theoretical “gravitational collapse” would be, once it has begun. Likewise the incredibly rapid, near-free fall time would also never happen from a "gravity-driven" collapse because of both Entropy and Newton's third law-- the reactant upward force of the bottom layers. In other words, the near perfect symmetrical "collapse" is not only spatially impossible due to Entropy; the rapid time of the near perfect symmetry is also temporally impossible due to both Entropy and Newton's Third law. The truth is the rapid, near-perfect symmetry of "collapse"-- all around the perimeter and the internal structure all at once-- is proof of what is was-- nuclear demolition with subsidiary help from conventional explosives as detailed here. Now Bazant’s “analysis” begins with his differential equations, and all his results depend on these. But the most basic tenets of mathematics preclude the use of differential equations here. Such equations are part of the calculus. But the calculus is explicitly built upon the necessary use of what the mathematician calls “smoothly changing functions” or “continuous functions.” And rapid or immediate massive, or phase, changes do NOT allow for the use of the calculus or differential equations. Furthermore, I assert that this is part of why Bazant must ignore the vaporized people, furniture and tower structure. Such vaporization is called a “phase transition” by physicists and mathematicians, and is inherently NON-DESCRIBABLE by the usual calculus and differential equations. Indeed in recent times, new branches of math and physics had to be created to describe such transitions, or discontinuous changes. Such new maths include Chaos Theory and Catastrophe Theory. So the claim of Bazant, et al, to even use his starting differential equations is a mathematical and physical fraud, and the resultant remainder need not even be looked at, as it is all a charade. But even though it has now been sufficiently proven that Bazant’s entire work is a charade, I will-- for the purpose of further exposing his work-- delve into some other parameters I didn’t expose in my first article here.

First (tip to Spooked) is his equation 11 for “F”, the “energy per unit height that is dissipated by comminution of concrete floor slabs and core walls…” To this equation, he adds a “Coefficient γ (which is > 0) has been inserted in Eq. (11) as an empirical effectiveness coefficient specifying the fraction of Kc that is dissipated by the work of comminution, and not by other energy dissipation sources. The precise value of this coefficient is extremely difficult to determine theoretically because all the other energy dissipation sources would have to be accurately calculated and subtracted from the total loss of gravitational potential converted into kinetic energy of impact.” Here he, in roundabout fashion, alludes to the chaos present, and the entropy factor. Soon thereafter he writes, “…the equation of motion, has been set up under the assumption that the accreted mass gets moving after impact with the same velocity as the top part, which implies perfectly inelastic collision (a zero coefficient of restitution). Therefore, coefficient γ needs to be calibrated empirically. In absence of any crushing experiments on the lightweight concrete used, the calibration of γ needs to be done the basis of comminution theory according to the size range of particles observed after the collapse. The result of such calibration gives γ = 0.74 as the optimum estimate.” So his ad hoc gamma coefficient is admittedly dependent on “size range of particles observed after the collapse.” And my earlier article demonstrated how he deliberately falsified, by a proven factor of at least four, and possibly by as much as a factor of a thousand, the smallest pulverized particle size! He claimed 10 microns was the smallest size found, when one government study found particles of 2.5 microns, and did not bother to test for anything smaller. The evidence I earlier cited indicates there may well have been particles created as small as 10 nanometers. Furthermore, as Spooked recently pointed out, his admitted “assumption” of “perfectly inelastic collisions” is also ludicrous. And we see again how he mixes ludicrous theoretical assumptions and false observations to fudge his way to his intended result. Finally, I must point out another false parameter Bazant used in his dust size analysis. He wrote:

“The distribution of particle sizes is, for the present purpose, adequately characterized by Schuhmann’s law of comminution (Fig. 4a): m(D) = mc(D/Dmax)k Eq. (12), where m(D) = mass of all particles < D; Dmax= maximum particle size; and k = empirical constant (for which the typical value k ≈ 1/2 is assumed)"

Now I checked the references he used to get his k=1/2, and looked into Schuhmann’s “Law” of comminution. This is not a real law of Physics, but appears to be a correlation of dust particle size whereby the dust particles were created in only one of two ways--by “dropping” or gravitational collapse, and by the use of TNT, such as in mining. His k=1/2 was strongly used to derive his energy needed for pulverization during “gravitational collapse.” And this is perhaps why his article contains only those two possible tower destruction mechanisms—gravity and TNT! His entire paper uses equations, parameters, and assumptions that assumed the result from the beginning, instead of proving it. Other possibilities, including the actual nuclear mechanism employed, were ignored with his corrupt circular reasoning. Furthermore, Schuhmann’s “law” was found or derived in 1940, before nuclear bombs and nuclear energy. As I have written, the very different Physics-- including the tremendous temperatures and pressure-- of a nuke, obviate the use of equations, including a so-called “law” whereby the force creating dust particles was assumed to be either “dropping” or TNT.

See my first article cited above, for more evidence of bogus equations, parameters, observations, and assumptions in Bazant’s article. Here is an html version of the original article. It is clear from this, and my earlier article, and Spooked’s work, and that of others, that the entirety of the articles by Z.P. Bazant and colleagues is deliberate, corrupt, bad science and mathematics. As NIST, and the latest stooge, Seffen (see my earlier article here), base their “findings,” at least in part, on Bazant’s papers, this whole “gravity-driven” charade, or pristine pancakes as I have called them, has been more than adequately pulverized. And it can’t be put back together again.

UPDATE: A pdf version of Bazant’s article has been "revised" as of 12/15/07; this is its second official revision. A quick scan of the "revision" shows Bazant has hung himself out to dry even WORSE now! Just one example. For the first time, Bazant, et al, have listed a "reference" for their claim of 10 microns as the smallest dust particle size. Perhaps Bazant, or some intel agent that frequents this place, informed Bazant of my article here decrying his lack of reference for his crucial claim of 10 micron smallest dust particle size. His revision now cites this website (!):

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html

This conspiracy site is clearly a limited hangout itself, and proclaims the "virtues" of S. Jones who would like the world to believe that thermite remains at thousands of degrees for months after use (to hide the China Syndrome). And that website piece cited a sciencedaily.com web article which finally led to the author and the EHP article I cited in my article on the bogus science of Bazant! The EHP article is here. One problem though, the EHP article clearly stated that 2.5-- not 10-- micron size particles were found and were an UPPER limit to the smallest particle size with the flimsy methods they used-- likely so as not to find vastly smaller particles which apparatuses were available then to do-- down to 10 nanometers, if they had wanted to find them. Nonetheless, 2.5 micron size pulverized particles were found and noted in the EHP article. So Bazant used roundabout references that led back to an article that calls him an out and out liar, as it clearly had 2.5 microns as an upper bound to the smallest particles found, and NOT the 10 microns that Bazant has stated and used in his “equations”! His collapse "mechanism" must energetically account for the smallest size particles, not just for the alleged "majority" or some such nonsense. I have just proven that Z.P. Bazant is guilty of scientific fraud, and I call for an immediate investigation. As 9/11 was a crime of mass murder, and only nuclear weapons account for all the destruction evidence, and the China Syndrome aftermath, and this could only have been carried out by the American government, Z.P. Bazant is now proven to be an accomplice after the fact. Indeed he may have been in on it before the fact, as his first bogus article on “gravitational collapse” was allegedly written and sent in two days after the event!

As New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison said when charging Clay Shaw, aka Clay Bertrand, as an accomplice in the murder of President Kennedy, “We got one of them now!” Years later, despite a faulty trial, Victor Marchetti who was CIA assistant Director (and future Director) Richard Helms assistant, revealed that Helms admitted to him that Shaw was indeed a “contract” CIA agent.

The deliberate lying by Z.P. Bazant about the smallest pulverized particle size is clear, and proves that “we got one of them now.” It is up to each of you now to publicize this far and wide on all blogs and try to get it to news sources. Don’t just try for the “911 truth” forums, for as I have written, these are virtually all run by intel operators-- see how many of them will have their owner/moderator put up this article even though they read my work here.

Please take the time to post this, and my other article cited at the top, at ALL forums-- I’ve seen my article posted at sports forums-- about anything, to turn up the heat on Bazant’s scientific fraud and the regime’s mass murder of 3000 Americans, which was used as an excuse to murder millions more innocent human beings around the world. This work may have forced Bazant to finally cite a reference for his claim of the smallest dust particle size. Now that he has slipped up and proven his malfeasance, your help may now get him charged with fraud! And don’t forget, he admits, at the end of his bogus article, that funding for the article’s ludicrous claim of “progressive collapse was obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation.” And we know the intel agencies frequently funnel money through other government departments. It’s time to do what Jim Garrison did-- start indicting the perps! “We got one of them now!”

[LARED]

25. You really should get in the habit of checking your facts

This is an image from the "Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center (WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001". Where ~ 98% 0f the particles tested in the samples were over 10 micron.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html

per spooked911

1) extra energy to pulverize concrete from Bazant's alleged 10 micron smallest dust size just to 2.5 micron size, as found in the "EHP study", was calculated with Bazant's equations, by Anonymous Physicist, to have needed 14% of total GPE". This is a VERY conservative assumption because, as explained by Anonymous Physicist, it is very likely a vast amount of even smaller particles were created during WTC destruction, which would require several times more energy than Bazant's 7% (even assuming 100% efficiency of pulverization).

[spooked911]

26. we're aware of that article and clearly you didn't read our articles

[LARED]

28. My apoligies

for interrupting your fantasy.

BTW paragraphs would be nice.

[spooked911]

33. Dust size is important

Perhaps this link would be easier to read
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-bazants-hack-science-and-wtc.html

In any case, the major point is that the dust samples analyzed were not a good representation of actual WTC dust-- and that Bazant lied about the dust particle size.

This lie is important, because it greatly affects his calculations on how much energy was required to pulverize the concrete-- and he vastly under-estimated the energy needed to produce the dust.

Of course Bazant made many other flawed assumptions in his energy analyses.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-bazants-hack-science-and-wtc.html

[Orrex]

27. I blame Chuck Norris

[LARED]

29. Chuck Norris is so old school

If there is blame to go around look to Jack Bauer. He can kick Norris' butt any day of the week.

[Orrex]

30. If Chuck Norris hears you say that, he'll kick your ass with Jack Bauer's ass

You've been warned.

[LARED]

31. Warning is duly noted.

and laughed at.

[Orrex]

32. Tell your friend not to stand too close behind you

Because when Chuck Norris smashes his steel-hard fist right through your chest, you don't want your pal to suffer collateral damage.

[hoi_polloi]

229. Spooked is offering truth but all you know is pop.

Americans are overseas destroying hundreds of families. You blame Chuck Norris.

Your post is embarrassing.

[DrDebug]

34. Great article

I wish I could recommend this...

Mini-nukes, no planes, Marsh & McClennan and Fuji Bank blew their own offices from an off-limits computer floor, ABCBBCCBSCNNFOX showed computer animations, and the terrorists were drug dealers working for the Cocaine Import Agency.

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
- John Lennon

[DrDebug]

35. Also like to say that it is good to see some topics about nukes

The debate tends to be focused on a silly Jones versus Wood game where both parties are diverting attention away from about the most likely candidate for such an explosion: nuclear weapons.

You have already mentioned that the DEW story is bogus and without any proof, however somehow if you dare to mention that, you are called a Jonesie. And Jones is playing a very smart diversion trick. Because he used to be/was connected to Los Alamos who most likely developed these mini nukes, he is telling people to look at the thermite which were used as cutter charges and is most likely telling the truth, because it is very likely that they were used, however it obscures the following:



Anyway that's my pathetic attempt at a diagram explaining what happened. WTC2 is similar except that it should read Fuji Bank. It is likely that IQ Financial Systems (working for Fuji Bank at the time and owned by Deutsche Bank at the time) and Euro Broker were involved as well because they were in the impact zone and the - almost empty - offices of IQ Financial Systems happened to catch fire as well even though that pathetic fire almost self extinguished.

[AZCat]

36. While I may not agree with your hypothesis...

it's nice to see you've begun to formulate one, rather than just trying to point out inconsistencies in the so-called official story. Diagrams are an excellent way to communicate your thoughts, and also work well when considering the viability of your own work. Sometimes words just aren't enough.

[DrDebug]

37. Actually I did one 2 1/2 years ago on this site

I have hardly been around here though, so even though I may seem a newbie, we have met before a long time ago.

The hypothesis is still on top of journal. This is just a little diagram, because I kept no-planes optional at the time because it wasnt strong enough. The nuke story isn't fully worked out either and lacking some strength, however all the alternatives like conventional explosives, thermobaric boms and those ridiculous DEWs fail to cover it, so I am leaning nukes. It is brilliant, because nobody will ever believe me anymore LOL

The problem with hypotheses is that they tend to be lengthy. Diagrams are better.

Anyway happy new year to you too.

[snooper2]

169. ..

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[spooked911]

38. kick

because it IS important

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. meh

First, I can't help but notice that the tone of this gutless "Anonymous Physicist" is that of a crank amateur mathematician who complains about how the establishment has suppressed the publication of his angle trisection method, with an admixture of political polemic. Curious minds have to wonder: if AP is so obviously right, why is s/he relegated to an obscure blog? How many thousands of physicists are involved in the plot, or else mortally clueless?

Curious minds also wonder: doesn't anyone have the sense to tell this person that a pitch-perfect imitation of a crank is likely to alienate on sight anyone who ever tried to slog through an angle trisection, or something equally batshit crazy? The words may say 'Read me!,' but the subtext says, 'Stay far away.'

So, is AP saying that Bazant tried to suppress the existence of dust particles < 10 microns, and that their existence should be attributed to nuclear explosives? That all seems far-fetched. Is AP familiar with federal regulations regarding PM2.5 "fine particles"? and that downstate New York often has elevated PM2.5 levels? Shall I attribute this to the routine detonation of mini-nukes? Is there really no other way to explain fines in the WTC dust?

(I see some handwaving about how the particles may have been far smaller, and how dust sampling should have been done sooner and, well, apparently all around the world. Whatever.)

[BunnyBluetimes]

40. spooked911 does this have anything to do

with the firefighters and other rescue workers receiving chronic lung disease? :shrug:
As I watched the towers fall I can make a comparison to a peeled banana. We would need another investigation to determine what really happened but I think the WTC core separated from each floor at an alarming rate, so some extreme force was used.

[spooked911]

41. The nuclear devastation produced extremely fine particles of mutliple toxic species that

undoubtedly contributed to the lung problems.

Don't forget there is a very significant rate of cancers in the first responders as well.

[BunnyBluetimes]

42. I've already said this but

the investigative team on DU is remarkable. Keep up the good work!! We can all make a comparison to demolitions around the world and see very few if any lung cancer or other cancer problems from those laborers who remove the debris. Just recently I viewed an amazing documentary which interviews the eyewitnesses of flight 77. The witnesses saw a plane coming from the north side of the CITGO while the 9/11 commission points out AA77 came from the south side all while knocking down several poles. 9/11 is unraveling keep the pressure up and I thank you and those like you for your research.

[AZCat]

46. I can't believe you called the Pentacon...

an amazing documentary. Why don't you try looking a little more into this? I think you might find the makers of said documentary are less than trustworthy.

[Realityhack]

48. You seriously think the towers were NUKED?

Really?

[hoi_polloi]

230. I do also

Does that help you reduce the rhetoric in your questions?

Or does it just make you more incredulous?

[rhymeandreason]

43. Incidence of cancer among first responders as evidence of mini-nukes

Anyone who has ever visited a PCB manufacturing facility knows that computer components are rife with toxic elements. But the high incidence of cancer amongst first responders does suggest that something even more toxic might have been a factor.

Death by Dust
The frightening link between the 9-11 toxic cloud and cancer
Kristen Lombardi
Tuesday, November 21st 2006
http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-11-21/news/death-by-dust/

excerpt:
To date, 75 recovery workers on or around what is now known as "the Pile"—the rubble that remained after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on the morning of September 11, 2001—have been diagnosed with blood cell cancers that a half-dozen top doctors and epidemiologists have confirmed as having been likely caused by that exposure.

Those 75 cases have come to light in joint-action lawsuits filed against New York City on behalf of at least 8,500 recovery workers who suffer from various forms of lung illnesses and respiratory diseases—and suggest a pattern too distinct to ignore. While some cancers take years, if not decades, to develop, the blood cancers in otherwise healthy and young individuals represent a pattern that experts believe will likely prove to be more than circumstantial. The suits seek to prove that these 8,500 workers—approximately 20 percent of the total estimated recovery force that cleared the rubble from ground zero—all suffer from the debilitating effects of those events.

The basis for the suits stems from the plaintiffs' argument that the government—in a desperate attempt to revive downtown in the wake of the catastrophic events on 9-11—failed to protect workers from cancer-causing benzene, dioxin, and other hazardous chemicals that permeated the air for months. Officials made these failures worse by falsely reassuring New Yorkers that they faced no long-term dangers from exposure to the air lingering over ground zero.

"We are very encouraged that the results from our monitoring of air-quality and drinking-water conditions in both New York and near the Pentagon show that the public in these areas is not being exposed to excessive levels of asbestos or other harmful substances," Christine Todd Whitman, the then administrator of the EPA, told the citizens of New York City in a press release on September 18—only seven days after the attacks. "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York . . . that their air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink."

Those statements were not only false and misleading, but may even play into the basis for the city's liability for millions of dollars in the recovery workers' lawsuits. Last February, U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts cited Whitman's false statements as the basis for allowing a different class-action lawsuit to proceed—this one, against the EPA and Whitman, is on behalf of residents, office workers, and students from Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, many of whom suffer from respiratory illnesses as a result of 9-11.

"No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to Lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," Batts wrote in her February 2 ruling. "Whitman's deliberate and misleading statements made to the press, where she reassured the public that the air was safe to breathe around Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, and that there would be no health risk presented to those returning to the areas, shocks the conscience."

And that was before anyone knew of the apparent cancer link, first reported in the New York news media in the spring of 2004. Even more shocking is the incidence of cancer and other life-threatening illnesses that have developed among those participating in the recovery workers' lawsuits. Given the fact that some cancers are slower to develop than others, it seems likely to several doctors and epidemiologists that many more reports of cancer and serious lung illnesses will surface in the months and years to come. The fact that 8,500 recovery workers have already banded together to sue, only five years later—with 400 total cancer patients among their number—leads many experts to predict that these figures are likely to grow, meaning a possible death toll in the thousands.

In many ways, these illnesses suggest the slow but deteriorating health issues that faced the atomic-bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where thousands died in the years and decades that followed the United States' use of nuclear weapons. And that similarity has not been lost on David Worby, the 53-year-old attorney leading the joint-action suits on behalf of those workers who are already sick, and even dying.

"In the end," Worby declares, "our officials might be responsible for more deaths than Osama bin Laden on 9-11."

[LARED]

45. You read this and took away there was evidence of mini-nukes?

In many ways, these illnesses suggest the slow but deteriorating health issues that faced the atomic-bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where thousands died in the years and decades that followed the United States' use of nuclear weapons.

Is English your second language?

[rhymeandreason]

44. MRR low yield Mini-nukes a reality

For those who haven't followed the exciting progress that has been made in the refinement of nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki this declassifed government document should be enlightening:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html#I46

RESTRICTED DATA DECLASSIFICATION DECISIONS
1946 TO THE PRESENT
(RDD-7)

January 1, 2001

excerpt:

V. NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND RELATED TECHNOLOGY
A. GENERAL

1. General Features

1. Super - speculation outside Armed Forces and AEC organizations. (48-2)

2. Fact that development of atomic warheads for guided missiles or artillery is underway - Any elaboration must be cleared by AEC and DOD prior to publication. (51-1)

3. Mere fact that gun assembly may be used to achieve criticality. (51-1)

4. Mere fact that implosion may be used to achieve criticality. (51-1)

5. Mere fact that either method may be used to achieve criticality Component parts of the system will be accorded a classification corresponding to the extent that the part reveals essential nature of the system. (53-1)

6. In-flight insertion; mere fact that U.S. has a system for nuclear arming of bombs while carrier is in flight (no other details). (56-3)

7. Weapon reliability; Inspection of weapons: Mere fact that such inspections are made. (56-3)

8. Mere existence of the phenomenon of predetonation. (56-3)

9. The term "one point detonation" is declassified in connection with 1955 safety experiments. Use in connection with either planned safety experiments or a weapon accident is also unclassified. (58-14)

10. The fact of existence of weapons with tailored outputs, e.g., enhanced x-ray, neutron or gamma-ray output; that we are hardening our weapons to enhanced weapon outputs and that high-Z materials are used in hardening nuclear weapons against high-energy x-rays. (72-11)

11. The fact of existence of a deep-earth penetration fuzing option. (72-11)

12. Limited Try - That feature of a coded switch which permits insertion of code possibilities only up to an established number; code tries in excess of an established number may result in a delay or lockout. (73-4)

13. The fact that the IFI (in-flight insertion of a nuclear material capsule or other nuclear part) safing method was applied to designated, retired weapons. (80-1)

14. The term “dial-a-yield” (DAY) and fact of its applicability to undesignated weapons. (89-3)

15. Fact that non-spherical parts are used in some weapons, part unidentified, weapon undesignated. (91-1)

16. Fact that multipoint detonation systems are used in undesignated weapons. (91-1)

17. The fact of the use of high explosives in pure fusion weapon research. (98-2)

18. Experiments done with High Explosive (HE) systems which do not resemble implosion assembled device HE systems. (98-12)

19. Specially designed systems intended to create strong shocks propagating down a cylinder that do NOT use classified material properties in design calculations and do NOT drive materials with classified material properties into classified regions of their equations-of-state. (98-12)

20. The experiments that were accomplished with systems listed in r. and s. above unless they (the experiments) drove materials with classified equation-of-state properties into regions which in themselves (the regions) were classified.

also

E. RELATED DEVELOPMENTS

1. Enhanced Radiation Weapons (ERW)

1. The mere fact that the U.S. is interested in pursuing a program to determine the characteristics of an "enhanced radiation" weapon (neutron bomb). (63-5)

2. The fact that the W-79 is an enhanced radiation weapon. (78-1)

2. Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) Weapons

1. The fact that we are interested in and are continuing studies on a weapon for minimizing the emerging flux of neutrons and internal induced activity. (67-1)

2. The fact of weapon laboratory interest in MRR devices. (76-3)

3. The fact of successful development of MRR devices. (76-3)

3. Nuclear Directed Energy Weapons (NDEW)

1. The fact that DOE weapon laboratories are engaged in a research program to explore the feasibility of a nuclear explosive driven directed energy weapon. (82-2)

2. The fact that research is being conducted on the specific concept of a nuclear pumped X-ray laser. (82-2)

3. The fact that the DOE is interested in or conducting research on NDEW concepts of certain specified generic types of output; i.e., visible light, microwaves, charged particles, kinetic energy. (85-4)

4. The fact that underground tests at the Nevada Test Site have been and are a part of the NDEW research program. (85-4)

5. The fact that a specified NDEW could engage multiple targets by using multiple beams from a single platform and hence is a high leverage system. (85-4)

6. The fact that an NDEW could have lethal ranges of thousands of kilometers. (85-4)

7. The fact that a kill mechanism for an x-ray laser is ablative shock. (85-4)

8. The fact that standard laser techniques (e.g., lenses, rods, slabs, and oscillators) were considered in the nuclear-pumped x-ray laser program without discussion of details or experimental results. (94-2)

9. The use of materials for the x-ray laser program, provided otherwise classified information about nuclear device performance is not revealed. (98-3)

4. Nuclear Directed Energy Systems (NDES)

1. Generalized description of DNES principles, as well as general qualitative or quantitative information on the physics and technology of low-power DNES research, that does not substantially: (86-1)
(1) Assist others in development of DNES weapons; or

(2) Contribute to feasibility assessment of DNES weapon development; or

(3) Reveal programmatic directions.
2. General qualitative descriptions of DNES program goals or objectives that do not reveal classified milestones or achievements or specific design characteristics. Classified milestones and their achievements will be reviewed for release on a case-by-case basis. (86-1)

3. General studies of DNES special nuclear materials and their physical properties. Specific special nuclear materials which are developed for (and the specificconditions of their association with) classified DNES projects and test device designs will remain classified. (86-1)

4. General studies of other DNES materials and their physical properties. No material identities or associations will be declassified where such information may be used to infer classified DNES characteristics. (86-1)

5. General DNES computational techniques or analytical procedures. Computational techniques and procedures which utilize or reveal specific design or operational characteristics will remain classified. (86-1)

[Realityhack]

47. So do you agree with spooked's premise?

And as we do not have any idea what is considered minimal how is this surprising or useful information?

[rhymeandreason]

49. minimal

Spooked has presented an interesting theory. It would explain much of what happened.

min·i·mal (mĭn'ə-məl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1.
1. Smallest in amount or degree.
2. Small in amount or degree.
3. Only barely adequate.
2. often Minimal Of, relating to, or being minimalism.

min'i·mal'i·ty (-māl'ĭ-tē) n., min'i·mal·ly adv.

[Realityhack]

50. Cute definition. Care to tell us how much radiation such a device would produce?

Oh that's right... as I said we do not know what constitutes minimal in this case.

However, I am not surprised by your lack of comprehension as anyone who thinks nuclear bombs explain what happened clearly doesn't comprehend much.

[rhymeandreason]

51. Cute

MRR devices for peaceful applications were developed at Livermore Laboratories as a part of the Ploughshares program.

4.5.4 Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR or "Clean") Designs

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-5.html

It has been pointed out elsewhere in this FAQ that ordinary fission-fusion- fission bombs (nominally 50% fission yield) are so dirty that they merit consideration as radiological weapons. Simply using a non-fissile tamper to reduce the fission yield to 5% or so helps considerably, but certainly does not result in an especially clean weapon by itself. If minimization of fallout and other sources of residual radiation is desired then considerably more effort needs to be put into design.

Minimum residual radiation designs are especially important for "peaceful nuclear explosions" (PNEs). If a nuclear explosive is to be useful for any civilian purpose, all sources of residual radiation must be reduced to the absolute lowest levels technologically possible. This means elimination neutron activation of bomb components, of materials outside the bomb, and reducing the fissile content to the smallest possible level. It may also be desirable to minimize the use of relatively hazardous materials like plutonium.

The problems of minimizing fissile yield and eliminating neutron activation are the most important. Clearly any MRR, even a small one, must be primarily a fusion device. The "clean" devices tested in the fifties and early sixties were primarily high yield strategic three-stage systems. For most uses (even military ones) these weapons are not suitable. Developing smaller yields with a low fissile content requires considerable design sophistication - small light primaries so that the low yields still produce useful radiation fluxes and high-burnup secondary designs to give a good fusion output.

Minimizing neutron activation form the abundant fusion neutrons is a serious problem since many materials inside and outside the bomb can produce hazardous activation products. The best way of avoiding this is too prevent the neutrons from getting far from the secondary. This requires using an efficient clean neutron absorber, i.e. boron-10. Ideally this should be incorporated directly into the fuel or as a lining of the fuel capsule to prevent activation of the tamper. Boron shielding of the bomb case, and the primary may be useful also.

It may be feasible to eliminate the fissile spark plug of a MRR secondary by using a centrally located deuterium-tritium spark plug similar to the way ICF capsules are ignited. Fusion bombs unavoidably produce tritium as a by- product, which can be a nuisance in PNEs.

Despite efforts to minimize radiation releases, PNEs have largely been discredited as a cost-saving civilian technology. Generally speaking, MRR devices still produce excessive radiation levels by civilian standards making their use impractical.

MRRs may have military utility as a tactical weapon, since residual contamination is slight. Such weapons are more costly and have lower performance of course.

This leads to another reason why PNEs have lost their attractiveness - there is no way to make a PNE device unsuitable for weapons use. "Peaceful" use of nuclear explosives inherently provides opportunity to develop weapons technology. As the saying goes, "the only difference between a PNE and a bomb is the tail fins".

4.5.5 Radiological Weapon Designs This is the opposite extreme of an MRR. Earlier several tamper materials were described that could be used to tailor the radioactive contamination produced by a nuclear explosion - tantalum, cobalt, zinc, and gold. Uranium tampers produce contamination in abundance - but quite a lot of energy too. In some applications it may be desired that the ratio of contamination to explosive force be increased, or tailored to a narrower spectrum of decay times compared to fission by-products.

Practical radiological weapons must incorporate the precursor isotope directly into the secondary. This is because the high compression of the secondary allows the use of reasonable masses of precursor material. In an uncompressed state, the thickness of most materials required to capture a substantial percentage of neutrons is 10-20 cm, leading to a very massive bomb. A layer of 1 cm or less will do as well when compressed by radiation implosion.

Some radioisotopes that would be very attractive for certain applications are difficult to produce in a weapon. A case in point is sodium-24, an extremely prolific producer of energetic gammas with a half-life of 14.98 hours. This isotope produces a remarkable 5.515 MeV of decay energy, with two hard gammas per decay (2.754 MeV and 1.369 MeV) and might be desired for very short-lived radiation barriers. The most obvious precursor, natural Na- 23, has a minuscule capture cross section for neutrons in the KeV range (although it is a significant hazard from induced radioactivity in soil after low altitude nuclear detonations). The best for precursor candidate for Na-24 is probably magnesium-24 (78.70% of natural magnesium) through an n,p reaction.

[Realityhack]

52. Um. You still fail.

You still have not specified a specific amount of radiation that constitutes 'minimum' for any bomb size. So you can not tell us that they could have been used at the WTC without detection because you have no idea what we would expect to detect.
Even your own quote indicates residual radiation levels are 'generally excessive by civilian standards'.

[rhymeandreason]

53. Classified

There is abundant information in the DOE document to indicate that they can make a nuclear device of small size, low yield and minimum residual radiation. And as is clearly specified in the OP there is clear evidence of the use of this kind of device(s) on 9/11. As to its exact specifications it seems obvious that this kind of information is classified.

What we do know for certain is that they had developed small (but not MRR) nuclear devices by the late 1950s. Devices such as the Davy Crocket missile (below).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)


I expect that in sixty years they have made considerable advancements in the design of these devices. Advancements such as reducing the amount of lethal fall-out (MRR) to an acceptable level.

[Realityhack]

54. No.

"there is clear evidence of the use of this kind of device(s) on 9/11."
There is no such 'clear evidence'.

As you point out the specifics are classified... so we do not know what specific levels of radiation would be expected from a MRR device.

We can however say with a very VERY high degree of confidence that no such device was used on 9-11.

[rhymeandreason]

55. Theory

This is simply a theory, supported by evidence but it is not conclusive, it is not a matter of fact. And neither is the theory offered by the government. In my view the government theory is unconvincing.

Even the most cursory examination of the visual evidence suggests that some means other than the impact of commercial jet liners with their cargo of jet fuel was the primary causal factor in the destruction of the WTC.

Ground Zero:

[Realityhack]

56. That image shows mostly the work of gravity.

There is NO evidence supporting the theory that nuclear bombs were used on 9-11.

[rhymeandreason]

57. Gravity/Explosive Force

Gravity works more like this:



The radically fragmented and ablated metal, oxidation and scattered ejecta suggest that the destruction of the towers was the result of enormous explosive force:

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rhymeandreason]

59. Physics

I see that you remain unpersuaded. Perhaps you should examine the photos more closely.

Gravity:



Ground Zero:




The debris at ground zero clearly shows the effects of massive explosive force.

[Realityhack]

60. Oh please.

Just because you have no idea what you are talking about doesn't mean that your pictures show the result of explosives.

Care to calculate for us how much energy is released when say one ton of material is dropped say 60 stories?

[rhymeandreason]

61. 1 Ton

Perhaps you can help me on this. How much energy is released when one ton of material is dropped sixty stories?

[vincent_vega_lives]

62. Here's some help

Relevent equation: KE = (1/2)MA(sqd)

M = 1 tons = 907 kg

A = acceleration due to gravity 9.8 mps/s

60 stories = 183m.

I'm confident you can handle the rest.

Ok I take pity.

KE = (1/2)907*(60m/s*60m/s)

KE = 453.5 * 3600

KE = 1,632,600 joules or 1.63 MJ.

1g of TNT = 4184 J.

therefore 1.63 MJ = .85lbs of TNT.

[rhymeandreason]

63. Resistance

Thank you.

I have another question. How would you calculate the resistance of steel framed a sixty foot radio transmitting tower to a one ton object falling vertically from a distance ten feet onto it?

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. is futile

Im sure civil engineers will tell you you are asking the wrong question.

It's not "resistance" that is calculated.

[rhymeandreason]

66. Vernacular

Sorry about my ignorance of civil engineering. If the energy or resistance is not what is calculated, how is the energy (PE?) of a stationary object calculated? And what is the correct terminology?

[Realityhack]

76. Unfortunately your ignorance is the problem.

You are making the statement that the pile could not have been created by gravity acting on the building. Yet you have no idea of what kind of forces are in play. You are arguing from a position of ignorance for your own predetermined conclusions without regard to the facts.

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. Except that

you have no idea of the concept you are talking about. Your scale, relative material strenghts, gravitational potential energy and masses involved are not comparable.

The towers weighed between 250,000 to 500,000 tons each depending on who you belive. Each were 1,360 feet.

The examples you cite invovle a MUCH higher material strengh to PE ratio.

[rhymeandreason]

67. Unique

Well it is very hard to find visual examples of any other events resembling WTC Ground Zero. Except photos of controlled demolitions and Hiroshima and Nagasaki and some of the heavily bombed cities in WWII such as Dresden and Berlin. Only in these events have I been able to find anything resembling the absolute devastation of WTC Ground Gero. And, after all, they do refer to it as "Ground Zero", a term coined to designate the detonation point of an atomic bomb.

[SDuderstadt]

69. So, you think they named it Ground Zero because...

they thought it had been hit with an atomic bomb? Really?

[rhymeandreason]

70. Origins

I think that it was named ground zero because it resembles the devastation of an atomic bomb.

Here is the wikipedia entry on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Zero#World_Trade_Center

World Trade Center

Main article: World Trade Center site

World Trade Center site (Ground Zero).

The term was also used to describe the site of the World Trade Center in New York City, which was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The term had been applied to the site in the 1980s by the authors of messages that were stenciled on the sidewalks of Manhattan. Each stenciled message included an arrow that pointed towards the southern tip of the island and stated: " miles to Ground Zero," in apparent reference to the targeting of the financial district by the Soviet Union in the event of a nuclear war. The adoption of this term by the mainstream North American media with reference to the September 11th attacks began as early as 7:47 p.m. (EDT) on that day, when CBS News reporter Jim Axelrod said,
“ Less than four miles behind me is where the Twin Towers stood this morning. But not tonight. Ground Zero, as it's being described, in today's terrorist attacks that have sent aftershocks rippling across the country.<2> ”

Rescue workers also used the phrase "The Pile", referring to the pile of rubble that was left after the buildings collapsed.

And if you look at it it really does look like ground zero Hiroshima:



WTC Ground Zero:

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Meaningless

The fact that the debris pile in Manhattan resembled the devastation of an atomic blast is not evidence that it was.

In several important respects, the debris pile at Manhattan does not resemble the devestation of an atomic blast, most notably in size of the devastation.

[vincent_vega_lives]

77. Yes you are correct

No other time in history has two 110 ft towers been hit by jet airliners and subsequently collapsed.

Anything can be a ground zero. It is a geographic point on the ground at the centre of a circle to begin measuring out from. Used during atomic tests to describe and measure effects in an ever expanding circles. Also can be used in air crashes, volcanos, toxic chemical release, ect, any event that originates from a single point.

[sabbat hunter]

68. the leaning tower

actually leans due to soft ground under its foundation, not gravity. It was actually in danger of tipping over due to gravity until they shored it up so it wouldn't tip any further.

[rhymeandreason]

71. Gravity

Isn't gravity the force that is pulling it over into the soft ground?

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Foundation

With a proper foundation built into the proper ground, gravity's effects on the Pisa tower would have been the expected one.

[sabbat hunter]

74. the weight of the tower

makes it sink in to the soft foundation. Yes that is an act of gravity. But on a solid foundation it would have stayed straight up and down.

Gravity wants to pull straight down towards the object. Any object (even humans) with mass have gravity.

The WTC always had gravity pulling it straight down, but when the supports were strong, whole, the building was able to resist gravity and stand up straight. Once the support was cut due to the planes crashing in to the buildings, gravity was able to overwhelm the remaining support and pull the building down.

[vincent_vega_lives]

78. Yes but it is not gravity that destroyed the towers

Gravity provides the acceleration component, the part of the towers above the collapse initiation point provided the mass component. Once the structural integerty at the crash points was compromised by removal of structual supports by thermal and mechanical means it was kinetic energy that destroyed the towers.

[rhymeandreason]

79. How would off-center impacts

from the jets causing partial damage to the towers result in free fall perpendicular collapse?

[Bolo Boffin]

80. Gravity

The only thing that could have stopped a collapse straight down to the ground was a structure below capable of distributing the force of the upper mass in motion. The structure below was only designed to hold the upper mass in stasis.

[Realityhack]

83. Wrong question.

As bolo points out the correct question is what would be required to result in something else.
Furthermore the upper sections did not drop perfectly strait. They had a rotational component as the started dropping and before long the entire collapse was a chaotic mess.
Most of the building fell strait down because that is where gravity takes it unless something stops it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

84. It wasn't free fall

and it didn't start out as "perpendicular" collapse.

It was near free fall and it transitioned from an asymetrical collapse to global collapse once part of the building was in motion.

[Realityhack]

85. Stop confusing people with facts. n/t

[Parker CA]

75. Forgive the uninformed post if that is what follows here.

Having never read this forum before, I am fascinated for many reasons. The outline in the OP is interesting, but I found much more interest in one of the follow-up statements about the images of the planes being CGI enhanced while not truly having existed. If I am understanding correctly, are you positing that the planes never existed and never flew into the towers, or that they did exist but that they were timed to hit as the nukes went off?

The reason I ask is because if your premise is the former, what do you suggest as the explanation for the families of all those lost in the plane crashes on 9/11? Are they all part of this conspiracy, or did the planes get taken down in some other manner than by crashing into the towers?

Lastly, how does a controlled nuke device create enough power to completely destroy the insides of the buildings but to not explode beyond the walls of the buildings? You state, "They vaporized anything near them (via million degree temperatures and/or high neutron flux), but the yield of these micro-nukes was deliberately small enough not to vaporize the outer structure." Not knowing anything about any of this, how does a nuke vaporize everything but do so with enough control not to vaporize the structural boundaries of the walls of the wtc?

Interesting information for sure, and like another poster, I don't know what happened, but the story as told does seem a bit too convenient. Thanks in advance for your answers if you should find the time to respond.

[rhymeandreason]

81. Eric Salter's analysis of the the various "no plane" theories

would be a good place to start in considering the validity of these theories.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/review.html
A Critical Review of WTC "No Plane" Theories

by Eric Salter

28 September 2005

excerpt:
With the amount of attention that the Pentagon no-plane theories have received, it shouldn't be surprising that some would also make the bizarre claim that no 767s hit the World Trade Center, despite voluminous video and photographic evidence to the contrary. My previous articles dealt with the core of these theories at length. These articles were lengthy, so the purpose of this summary is to provide a somewhat condensed and updated summary for those new to the subject or lacking in the time to delve into the details of the image analysis.

There are 2 versions of the no-plane arguments: The first, that small planes or missiles hit the towers and these were covered over in the videos and photos of the impact by 3D graphic images of 767s. The other argument made is that the planes (at least the second plane) was in fact a hologram generated by classified technology. The proponents argue that visual "anomalies" indicate the fraudulent nature of the holographic or computer 767-in the case of the second hit-and show that the plane in the Naudet video of the first hit was not the size or shape of a 767.

The over arching weakness of the media overlay argument is this: how could the perpetrators have ensured control over all the images taken of the planes that approached the WTC? Only one good image posted to the web would have threatened the exposure of the operation. New York is a media capital of the world, with both national networks, local network and independent TV stations, and international media bureaus, and many independent video companies like the kinds I've worked for, and professional photographers. Professionals would have been rushing out to document whatever they could, through professional pride or the hope for making a buck off it. Evan Fairbanks and war photographer James Nachtway are some examples. And then there are also cameras in the possession of ordinary citizens and the thousands of New York's ever-present tourists...

One of the advocates of the controversial and disturbing no planes theory is Morgan Reynolds:

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

We Have Some Holes
in the Plane Stories*
By Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.
March 5, 2006
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes

excerpt:
Some readers might object that critical examination of the official airplane stories is silly because everybody saw a plane hit the WTC south tower that morning. But that was only one of four events and seeing is not believing in a world of special effects. Something fantastic shown on TV is not the end of a criminal investigation but the beginning. Any important proposition delivered by the media must be established by evidence independent of their sleight-of-hand. They have been repeatedly exposed as liars, usually on behalf of the social apparatus of compulsion they must appease daily to continue their high-revenue businesses over the public airwaves. The media are not so much “embedded” with the U.S. government and military as “in bed” with them. Even if you reject this “echo chamber” view, there is no doubt that the technology exists to insert prepared images into pixels in real time and make the images prepared in advance look (mostly) real. The first-down stripe inserted in NFL telecasts is an example. Some analysts argue that the WTC crashes were little more than Tuesday-morning cartoons. Whether or not such a conclusion is warranted, any proposed theory of what happened must be consistent with physical evidence and conform to the principles of physics, the official conspiracy theory included. We should put aside preconceptions based on pixels and evaluate the physical evidence anew. Videos are discussed again toward the end of the article.

As to the possibility that fourth generation nuclear weapons were used in the destruction of the World Trade Center you might find the information in this Declassified document useful:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html#I62

Along with this article concerning "bunker busters":

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/new_nuclear_weapons/loyieldearthpenwpnrpt.html

Critics argue that adding low-yield warheads to the world's nuclear inventory simply makes their eventual use more likely. In fact, a 1994 law currently prohibits the nuclear laboratories from undertaking research and development that could lead to a precision nuclear weapon of less than 5 kilotons (KT), because "low-yield nuclear weapons blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war."

Last year, Senate Republicans John Warner (R-VA) and Wayne Allard (R-CO) buried a small provision in the 2001 Defense Authorization Bill that would have overturned these earlier restrictions. Although the language in the final Act was watered down, the Energy and Defense Departments are still required to undertake a study of low-yield nuclear weapons that could penetrate deep into the earth before detonating so as to "threaten hard and deeply buried targets." Legislation for long-term research and actual development of low-yield nuclear weapons will almost certainly be proposed again in the current session of Congress.

[Realityhack]

82. There was a meme here a while back....

no plane = no brain.

Fairly accurate if you look at the evidence without preexisting conclusions.

As for nuclear weapons the same is true. Your question about how an nuclear bomb could be powerful enough to vaporize large volumes while leaving the exterior of the building intact is just one example of the utter stupidity of the idea.

[rhymeandreason]

86. Perhaps you're rushing to conclusions.

I think you should take the time to review the OP and read through the DOE report on weapons development. The possibility that low yield nukes might have been used to destroy the core of the buildings seems quite plausible. It is amazing to me how little public awareness there is of USG weapons programs, particularly with regard to third and fourth generation nuclear weapons.

[Realityhack]

87. No I most certainly am not.

Spooked's hypothisis involves VERY high levels of radiation to heat the debris pile after the collapse though radioactive decay (which he labels 'china syndrome' for some reason). That alone rules out his hypothesis as this simply was not present and would have been easily detected.

As for your silly position...
The core was 'vaporized' by 'low yield nuclear weapons' but they didn't even disturb the glass on the face of the building and didn't just leave a relatively low amount of residual radiation, but left none at all.
This also assumes that a series of nuclear weapons were used. Set off in one building and then the other. Without the phisical blast from the detonations, immediate radiation pulse, or electromagnetic pulse interfering with the detonation of even one of them (as that would result in high grade nuclear material on site).
This was all orchestrated for absolutely no apparent reason.
And your evidence is that given your negligible understanding of engineering you don't think the building cores should have collapsed in the way they did (which you probably misunderstand anyway).

Once again. There is NO evidence to support this theory and no need for it as the 'unexplained' things you point to are not in fact actually unexplained.

[rhymeandreason]

88. This is is an interesting and plausible theory

especially in view the advanced development of nuclear weapons.

Of course it isn't conclusive and I would differ with spooked on the "Only" part of his OP. I do think that it is a theory worth taking seriously and considering it has the added benefit of being highly educative as to the state of modern weaponry. You should really spend more time reviewing the DOE document, it's fascinating.

[LARED]

89. Interesting -- maybe, plausible -- LOL

Plausible (plô'zə-bəl)

1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking: “Ambitious, unscrupulous, energetic, … and plausible,—a political gladiator, ready for a ‘set-to’ in any crowd” (Frederick Douglass).


Spooked theory is hardly plausible. At best, it's satirical.

[rhymeandreason]

90. Plausible

I really just meant plausible in this sense:



The theory posted by spooked may be implausible to you but AFAIC it makes much more sense than the Government's accounts of what happened.

[Bolo Boffin]

91. Incredulity

Your personal incredulity is not evidence of any actual plausibility of anything.

[LARED]

92. Well if we're going to invent new meanings for words anything is

possible.

Watch

I think an army of fairies destroyed the WTC using nothing more than pixie dust and dried troll dung, as even that is more sensible than the "official story"

[rhymeandreason]

93. Plausible

Latin plausibilits, deserving applause, from plausus, past participle of plaudere, to applaud.

I agree, an army of faeries using pixie dust and dried troll dung as the destructive agents is vastly more sensible than the official stories.

[LARED]

94. Do you speak Latin fluently?

Seriously, defending your position by going back to the Latin meaning is ...well.... not very plausible!

[rhymeandreason]

95. Just a year in college, I always enjoyed the philosophers.

Here's a quote from Cicero just for you:

He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason.


In considering the possibility that some type of nuclear weapon was used to destroy the WTC, you might want to look at this tidy little device which was developed forty-five years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48



W48

Weapons designers and a W48 155mm shell mockup.

The W48 was an American nuclear artillery shell, fired from a standard 155 mm (6.1 inch) howitzer. It was manufactured starting in 1963, and all units were retired in 1992.

The W48 was 6.1 inches (155 mm) in diameter and 33.3 inches long. It came in two models, Mod 0 and Mod 1, which are reported to have weighed 118 and 128 pounds respectively. It had an explosive yield equivalent to 72 tons of TNT (0.072 kiloton), which is very small for a nuclear weapon.

[SidDithers]

108. They're lower yield weapons, because they're more inefficient...

From your wiki link, that W48 shell needed ~ 13kg of plutonium, a large percentage of which would be blown all over lower Manhattan, had a similarly sized device been used at the WTCs. And widely scattered plutonium wouldn't be something easily hidden by Teh Government.

Sid

[Realityhack]

96. Under what twisted definition of 'plausible' are you operating

Spooked's original 'theory' is physically impossible. It appears your selective recall of his theory is equally impossible.

To say nothing of wither such a thing could even theoretically actually be pulled off in the real world.

Your ignorance is not a valid basis for a theory.

[rhymeandreason]

97. It would undoubtedly be productive for

you to read the DOE declassified document that I posted earlier. That way you might have some idea of what you are talking about. Willful ignorance of the facts doesn't help to develop much of an argument -- what you don't know could kill you. Educate yourself.

Here it is:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html#I1

[Realityhack]

99. That document while interesting...

is completely and totally irrelevant. Nothing in it negates the massive problems with either the 'theory' you or spooked has presented.

It is simply amazing to me that you accuse me of willful ignorance when you are promoting a theory that is as substantiated as pixie dust.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

100. visit my blog if you want to know about no planes

as far as the nuke question, i don't see why it is hard to imagine a nuke device with a limited blast radius-- and the outer steel walls would be more resistant to blasting than inner building contents such as walls and furniture.

[Realityhack]

101. Said outer steel walls had these things called windows.

You are not just proposing a small nuke. You are proposing one that can vaporize the core columns but leave the windows intact.
You are proposing one that leaves enough residual radioactive decay to heat metal to red hot or even melt it, without any detectable radiation.

Your 'hypothesis' is not even internally consistent.

And I must stick with the statement that "no planes = no brains".

[spooked911]

106. "leave the windows intact"????

what on earth are you talking about?

[Realityhack]

113. You claim we can't see the blast waves because...

the devices were able to 'vaporize' the core and much of the contents of the buildings but could not penetrate the outer walls... which had windows... which would have been blown out... so we would have seen the shockwaves/explosions.

[spooked911]

114. but we CAN see the explosions-- the massive jutting debris clouds

so I still don't get your point about the windows

the major point is that surely you can imagine a high intensity blast with a limited radius such that it pulverizes/vaporizes* the core but doesn't destroy the outer walls (though it does push the outer columns outward). What we would see and what we DID see was dense debris clouds being blown outwards from the core.


*I'm not really sure how much was vaporized though there did seem to be missing core columns from the debris pile
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2006/12/ground-zero-smoking-cannon-where-are.html

[Bolo Boffin]

115. Really? Can we HEAR them? Nuclear explosions are rather loud.

So now you have a "high intensity blast with a limited radius such that it pulverizes/vaporizes* the core" and was very, very quiet about doing it. There are lots of videos of these buildings falling. Can you provide us with one, just one, that records the sound of this/these nuclear explosion/s?

BTW, the core was not pulverized or vaporized. In fact, the core of the lower section was mostly left standing after the floors were ripped away. It took a few seconds for them to fall. So why you think you need a nuclear blast with science fiction technology to vaporize them when they are right there on video and photographs to be seen is something you need to explain to us.

And yes, they are visible in the debris pile as well.



See the big bulky core columns on the left?

[spooked911]

117. many witnesses have described the event as being very loud

it's not exactly clear how mini-nukes going off hundreds of feet off the ground would sound, anyway.

About the core-- I *know* it wasn't all vaporized. But as I've written here before, there seem to be huge numbers of core columns missing from the debris pile.
http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2006/12/ground-zero-smoking-cannon-where-are.html

[Bolo Boffin]

118. No, I said, "Can WE hear it" in the many, many videos of this event?

If it's vaporizing core columns, it's clear that it would be very loud indeed. And yet you can't produce a video. You have to say, people described it as loud. Very, very weak.

The spires left after each tower collapse gives the factual inaccuracy to your claim that core columns were missing. Guess how many floors of core columns are right there, standing in the air, unvaporized by any process whatsoever? Go on, guess.

[spooked911]

119. The "spire" was about 70 stories tall I think

but it wasn't the complete core-- certainly not at its highest point.

the noise issue is a red herring--

no one seriously thinks that the destruction was quiet

most OCT-lers argue that the descriptions of explosions from ear-witnesses were the sounds of the floors breaking away and crashing and smashing

[Bolo Boffin]

121. The noise issue is not a red herring. The noise issue is an insurmountable problem for you.

Which leads you to handwave it away.

So that core 70 stories high, out of a 110 story building, one hit around floor 80, one hit higher -- that much of the core in BOTH buildings wasn't vaporized or melted or disintegrated. The floors fell away from the core by what mechanism? It couldn't be nukes melting them away because there they are.

So you seriously think that floors breaking away, ripping apart, and crashing and smashing -- that this would have essentially been a quiet phenomenon? Really?

[spooked911]

128. who said it was quiet???

in fact, you seem to be arguing that "floors breaking away, ripping apart, and crashing and smashing" would have been quiet-- since there are no videos with an audio record of this incredible noise. Either mini-nukes or the official story would have been incredibly noisy. SO where does that get us?

As far as the core, I never claimed that the entire core was vaporized! I only claimed some of it was. Which is entirely consistent with the spire, which only shows a small part of the core.

[Bolo Boffin]

130. I didn't say it was quiet.

I did say it wasn't loud enough to be nukes. There are videos with the sound of the building collapses intact. They don't sound like nukes. The seismograph records exists, Spooked. They would have the nuclear blasts on them. They don't.

[spooked911]

132. Except you have no idea what the seismograph of mini-nukes going off

in a huge building looks like, nor do you know what the sound would be like. Honestly I appreciate your point-- but I don't think we have enough evidence to use for comparison for sound or seismograph to rule out mini-nukes.

[Bolo Boffin]

136. But people who do know what a charge at least large enough to cut columns

But people who are experts in reading seismographs and recognizing charges at least large enough to cut core columns have looked at the seismographs and can't find them.

Your personal incredulity stands convicted in that you consider nukes plausible.

[spooked911]

140. Actually, I have yet to see a credible analysis of the seismograph data (official or otherwise)

Considering there were massive seismograph spikes during the destruction, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that bombs could not have been involved.


...and your personal incredulity stands convicted in that you support the official 9/11 story -- and further that you spend a great deal of time arguing in support of the official story.

[Bolo Boffin]

141. Credible to you. And you think nukes destroyed the towers.

Considering that experts in reading seismographs couldn't find spikes consistent with explosive devices, it's beyond ridiculous to suggest nuclear bombs were involved.

I'll put my personal incredulity against yours any day. And no one has to rely on either to understand that the building collapses were not controlled demolition.

[spooked911]

143. and yet still no one has come up with good counter-arguments to the points made in the OP

seems to me that anyone could read into these spikes what they want-- particularly supporters of the official story

[OnTheOtherHand]

148. didn't see any that merited counterargument

except that I took a few moments to tweak the weird stuff about dust.

Following a few links, I found what amounts to AP's concession that his theory doesn't "fit all the evidence":

The reason Pecoraro’s statements look so different, and more powerful than most others can be explained, as follows. Nearly all eyewitness accounts are in some government commission or investigation body’s reports. All the intel agents in control heavily censor all these. Similarly, the MSM wouldn’t disseminate such an eyewitness account either. Instead of being independent watchdogs, all the MSM have, for many years, been just a branch of the regime. The MSM is controlled by its worst elements: chronologically, first military “intelligence”, then the FBI, then the CIA and the NSA. Pecoraro’s statement appears in the online newsletter of his own Chief Engineers Association, a fraternal or union-like organization. It has apparently not (yet) been infiltrated and controlled by any of the Gestapo agencies. You might want to archive his statements before they disappear.

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2008/05/summary-of-evidence-of-emps.html

In other words, the vast majority of eyewitness accounts provide no support whatsoever for AP's speculations. But this is, supposedly, because the "Gestapo agencies" control all the information -- except for the online newsletter of the Chief Engineers Association, and a few other accounts that somehow escaped the totalitarian trawl net.

So, the mass of disconfirming evidence becomes, implicitly, evidence of the breadth of the conspiracy. It is hard to imagine what kind of eyewitness testimony would not strengthen AP's conviction that big nukes went off and the MSM is in on the plot. But for the rest of us -- perhaps especially those of us who live or lived in New York at the time -- if the evidence is so strong, it really shouldn't be limited to a handful of eyewitness accounts. (ETA: In real life, most eyewitness accounts are not in government reports.)

[spooked911]

152. not that you're biased or anything

obviously you're twisting the logic to fit your viewpoint

plenty of reports were on the great heat at ground zero, which is some of the most important evidence for nukes-- the china syndrome.

and the dust particle size is critical, and you glossed over it for your own biased reasons.

[OnTheOtherHand]

153. "obviously"?

Try making your case first, before you tell me how biased I must be not to be convinced. Just a thought.

plenty of reports were on the great heat at ground zero, which is some of the most important evidence for nukes-- the china syndrome.

Can you provide any support for that inference other than "The Anonymous Physicist"? My brother-in-law spent quite a bit of time at Ground Zero after 9/11. He doesn't seem to think that he saw evidence of "the china syndrome," but I will grant that he isn't a nuclear physicist.

and the dust particle size is critical, and you glossed over it for your own biased reasons.

I don't think I glossed over it, I think I gave it more attention than it deserves. But if you care to offer a substantive response, I will consider it.

[spooked911]

158. did your brother-in-law observe heat from the rubble pile?

there are scores of reports corroborating that. if he didn't, what parts of ground zero was he at?

[OnTheOtherHand]

160. yes, he did

and I agree that there are scores of reports corroborating heat from the rubble pile. However, the syllogism seems to be, more or less:

The rubble pile was hot.
Nukes cause heat.
Therefore, the rubble pile was nuked.

which obviously is fallacious. So I'm looking for a more serious argument.

[spooked911]

162. Well there you go--and the argument is much more sophisticated than you make out

which I'm sure you know.

Btw, hope your brother-in-law is ok. As you know, there is a high rate of cancer and other health problems with GZ workers.

[OnTheOtherHand]

163. why are you sure I know it?

If you go around assuming that everyone already knows what you think you know, I guess it isn't surprising that your arguments aren't very convincing -- since you see no need to be persuasive.

[spooked911]

165. you just seemed so sure about everything else

:)

But if you didn't know-- sorry, it's true. I'm not kidding and it's a verifiable fact.

[OnTheOtherHand]

166. what, compared with the Anonymous Physicist?

I can't imagine how you would interpret a formulation such as "the syllogism seems to be, more or less..." as more dogmatic than "ONLY Nuclear Bombs and the China Syndrome Fit All the Evidence." Whatever.

As to the rest, we may be talking past each other. I do realize, as does my brother-in-law, that there are lots of health problems among Ground Zero workers. I'm not trying to spar or to jest about that. So far, he is OK.

Where I'm stuck is: "the argument is much more sophisticated than you make out." Well, OK, but I'm sure you know that not everyone regards the heat in the rubble pile as evidence of "China Syndrome." The word of an Anonymous Physicist does not, in itself, carry the day with me.

[Realityhack]

116. Bolo +1 n/t

[aayers]

109. no planes =BRAINS

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8045542387672451515&ei=TpajScDiB52wqAP738SuAQ&q=september+clues&hl=en>

The video is an analysis of the trick photography photography used to create the plane hoax. For a home demonstration, try smashing an aluminum can against a steel grate.

The China Syndrome is the best explanation of the hot spots in the debris I have found. The phenomena described at Dr Judy Wood's website fits a nuclear demolition, perfectly. We are being led away from nuclear demolition, which leads me to accept nuclear demolition.

[LARED]

110. Just so you know, when

invoking the name Judy Wood, the strange muffled noise you hear is people snickering at you over the Internet.

[Realityhack]

111. Almost as good as torching chicken wire.

And "we" are not being "led away from nuclear demolition" nobody with a clue takes it seriously in the first place.

[hack89]

164. Why don't fires explain the hot spots? nt

[Realityhack]

171. Abnormal Psychology?

but then I think fires do explain the hot spots so I could be biased.

[defendandprotect]

156. Interesting post . . .

On the other hand, right now re the "no planes" I tend to lean that way because
I think the Pentagon is the best example of that. I also think trying to reach
"bingo" is rather silly --- it will take a long time for these theories to prove
or disprove themselves.

In the case of the Pentagon I think a real plane flew over it . . . low . . . just
as the explosives were set off. And I think there were a variety of explosives ---
including perhaps a bunker buster which could have made the round hole we were told
the plane went thru!!!

At any rate, there could have been just one plane used -- flown in from one side of
the WTC towers and photographed and then flown in from the other side and photographed.
Then flown down to the Pentagon site -- and then on to the field where I doubt anything
crashed from what I've seen. It could have been any kind of a plane and returned to
wherever it came from at the end of the day. Others have tracked the alleged crash
site in the open field and say that pre-9/11 photos show it in the exact same condition.

As for the alleged planes and passengers, anything could have happened. They might have
been crashed into the ocean. There is at least one report of one of the planes landing
in Cleveland, I think -- and all passengers leaving the plane safely. On the other hand,
according to United Airlines/? two of the allegedly hijacked flights were not scheduled
to fly that day! Additionally, the passenger lists are odd -- with the hijackers not
being listed, as I understand it, but added later. Some find the passenger lists
unusually skimpy -- and some have traced many of the alleged passengers to right-wing
organizations, military, etal. And, Barbara Olsen's supposedly being on one of the
flights makes me even more suspicious, reminding me of Martha Mitchell's fate - i.e.,
the woman who knew too much? The alleged phone calls are also very strange; unbelievable.

I also think your third paragraph and question about "control" very relevant because
the WTC sat on a "BATHTUB" which held back the Hudson River ---

This slurry wall, the three-foot-thick, eleven-acre rectangle of scarred concrete within the pit, was built in 1967 to seal the Trade Center's foundation against seepage from the nearby Hudson River, whose eastern shoreline used to slice right down this site. The bathtub, the workers called it, and still do. It was held in place by more than a thousand steel-cable tiebacks fed through six-inch holes drilled through the walls, then grouted and jack-yanked at a 45 degree angle deep into the bedrock until the seven basement and subbasement levels of the World Trade Center were erected. The buildings themselves, once raised, held the bathtub in place.

and whatever the method, it seemed designed to keep that area from being demolished.

I'm certainly a believer in MIHOP -- I think much of it is military work -- even if on off-duty
hours - Blackwater, perhaps. And certainly following the PNAC agenda, with Bush/Cheney
involvement. Also think that the "white elephant" status of the WTC was probably well known
in certain circles and that much of that was an open secret. If you're not familiar with
this, evidently the asbestos problems and problems with the facade were major problems which
were going to require the building of scaffolding and the towers being dismantled.
They were not going to be permitted demolition.

As I recall the work on the JFK coup, it was immediate -- in DC many knew the names of those
involved, even if not all of them. Mark Lane, of course, fired the first shot across their
bow and there was no stopping it from there. While some of the investigators may have come
across red herrings and misdirection, I don't think it slowed them down nor do I think any
of the false information got into print. Mae Brussel was extraordinary in understanding how
all encompassing this was, pointing early on to "Nazis." And, Jack Ruby in letters from jail
also indicated the "Nazi-like" nature of those involved.
Jim Garrison called every part of the coup accurately and probably knew much more than he
fully revealed at the time. Bless them all! And I have every confidence that the same will happen
with 9/11. The nature of these things, however, is that those who do the actual dirty work seem
to be the first to be disposed of. The higher ups are not going to be ratting one another out
unless something extraordinary happens. Right now I have to feel that no one really has the
power to expose either the JFK coup or the other political assassinations, nor 9/11.

[SidDithers]

107. This Anonymous Physicist can wave his hands all he wants...

but the simple fact of the matter is, without radiation, you don't have nukes. The idea that FEMA "was/is in charge of any radiation data for Ground Zero, and could easily have blocked release of any data that found radiation." is utter bullshit, because any University physics lab in New York would be able to detect radiation if nukes had been used.

Sid

[Realityhack]

112. Yep.

And if the heat in the pile was from nuclear decay there would have been a shitload. They would have picked it up just trying to calibrate for other experiments.

[spooked911]

122. where do they say there was no radiation?

you know what a cover up is, I assume?

[defendandprotect]

154. Certainly the EPA covered up all the crap that floated out telling ...

NY'ers it was safe to return! Giving rescue workers no idea of the many harmful

ingredients in the 9/11 soup!

Much later that info did come out --- but probably too late for many.

[spooked911]

120. nuclear demolition-- video summary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FNGWsjj_Y

[bottomtheweaver]

155. Great video spooked.

It's difficult for me to fathom how anyone who's actually been paying attention all this time could still truthfully support the ridiculous inanities I'm seeing in this thread.

[snooper2]

170. ROFL

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


I like the creepy "spooky" music theme

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[spooked911]

123. The Efffect of a Low Yield Nuke on a Steel Structure

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/03/efffect-of-low-yield-nuke-on-steel.html

[AZCat]

124. Dual FAIL!

Physics and spelling FAIL! Way to go, spooked911.

And no, there would not be a "linear correlation between nuke yield and vaporization radius." Basic physics. This shows yet again that you are trying to talk about subjects that are way over your head.

[spooked911]

129. After further thinking I realized that the yield-vaporization ratio wouldn't be linear

sorry I didn't put it in the post-- although I did say "I would guess it's not perfectly linear."

IN ANY CASE---

the fact remains that a low yield nuke could vaporize a fair amount of steel structure and blow apart but not vaporize sections that were farther from the vaporization zone.

You're not disputing this, are you?

[AZCat]

131. Before accepting your "fact" let's look at a little math.

The specific heat of vaporization of iron (steel's major component) is about 49.2 kJ/cm^3. One tonne equivalent TNT is about 4.2 kJ. It would take about twelve tonnes equivalent TNT to vaporize one cubic centimeter of steel. This means that your fizzled 200 T nuclear weapon (which would be very dirty, by the way) would only vaporize about 17 cm^3 of steel. That's assuming, by some miracle, all the energy from the explosion was applied to the steel (which, as anyone familiar with radiation would know, is impossible in this situation).

Check my math, but it appears your "fact" is not true.

[spooked911]

134. I don't quite get your point-- I was citing an official nuke test-- if you follow the link.

Are you doubting that a nuke can vaporize steel???

I also think your calculations are over-simplified.

[AZCat]

135. Oh, I followed the link.

That's were I got the 200 T number from.

If you think my calculations are over-simplified, then provide your own. They are sufficient to disprove your theory.

[spooked911]

139. what theory???

are you saying the Operation Upshot-Knothole nuke test didn't vaporize part of the steel tower???

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Upshotk.html

[AZCat]

142. Depends what you mean by "part".

If we're talking less than a few cubic centimeters, then yes. Otherwise, no. The math supports my conclusion - not yours.

[spooked911]

144. the official conclusion was that the top 100 feet of the steel tower were vaporized

are you doubting this?

[LARED]

145. Can you provide evidence where the "official conclusion" states

this?

[spooked911]

146. you do realize I'm referring to a nuke test from the 50's?

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Upshotk.html

[OnTheOtherHand]

147. the question about the "official conclusion" stands

Some unspecified contributor(s) to nuclearweaponarchive.org does assert that "only the top 100 feet of the 300 foot shot tower was vaporized," but the assertion doesn't appear to be sourced. (It isn't entirely clear that the author means "vaporized" literally, although the next sentence implies that s/he does.)

I have no knowledge of or opinion about the outcome of the test; I simply note that so far you haven't supported your claim.

[AZCat]

149. We are all aware of the source of your claim.

However, I don't think it qualifies as "official". It would be nice to see a more sophisticated calculations, especially if you think mine are "over-simplified". Simple they may be, but they're still more than you've ever provided. Man up, spooked911.

[spooked911]

151. what's your point?

are you trying to say the site exaggerated the ability of nuclear bombs to vaporize steel?

I assume you know about other tests such as the Trinity test:

http://www.olive-drab.com/od_nuclear_trinity.php
"The next morning the entire bomb was raised to the top of the 100 foot steel tower and placed in a small shelter. A crew then attached all the detonators and by 5:00 PM on 14 July it was complete.

(snip)

The blast was estimated as equivalent to 19,000 tons of TNT. The tower was vaporized leaving only stubs of the legs in concrete pilings. The explosion did not make much of a crater. Most eyewitnesses describe the area as more of a small depression instead of a crater."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_nuclear_test

[AZCat]

167. Of course I know about Trinity.

What is more interesting to me is that for someone so sure of his theory, you seem to know very little about the physics of nuclear weapons. Can you address my (admittedly) simple calculation?


The point, by the way (in case it wasn't blindingly obvious), was to point out that your "proof" of the use of nuclear weapons for the demolition of the World Trade Center towers is lacking any reference to physics, something I would consider necessary for such an extraordinary claim.

[bottomtheweaver]

125. I think that's a very compelling hypothesis,

in fact the most compelling hypothesis available. Other devices may have also been used, but nuclear weapons are the only technology I know capable of rendering those gigantic monsters into particles, and nukes are not exactly unfamiliar to the US military industrial complex.

[AZCat]

126. It may be compelling, but it's also wrong.

This isn't a goddamn movie. The hypothesis with the best plot doesn't win.

[spooked911]

127. but the hypothesis that fits the facts best does win

There is no doubt that the official story can't explain all the facts and that nukes does

[AZCat]

133. Actually, there's quite a lot of doubt.

Your understanding of the "official story" and the workings of nuclear weapons leaves a lot to be desired.

[bottomtheweaver]

137. Very little. "Hypothesis" is a polite way of saying bingo.

It's so obvious at this point that it's kind of ridiculous.

[AZCat]

138. I would expect someone like you to come to that conclusion.

The rest of us - the rational ones - say otherwise.

[defendandprotect]

150. Back tomorrow to read this post . . .but agree some pretty strange stuff went on . . .

MIHOP --

[defendandprotect]

157. I think very clearly, numerous methods were used . . .

We can see the evidence of plain old demolition ---

And activity within the building in weeks before 9/11 suggests that people had opportunity
to wire the core -- evidently work on the elevators was being done which would have given
them accress to the core. Steel beams being pre-cut to 10' lengths also suggest demolition
tactics.

Firemen reported many explosions in the building in rapid-fire succession going around the
building. The evidence of these can be seen on film.
Seismic reports I've seen -- which may be incomplete -- certainly indicate multiple explosions.
One film I saw seemed to suggest that a helicopter flying over the WTC towers was actually
triggering some of the explosions. Also, explosions could be seen coming from ground level
or below. And witnesses make clear that was what was happening.

Just want to comment on this . . .

The ludicrous lying (“there never was any heat during or after WTC destruction”) or the poor attempts to create new laws of chemistry and physics by alleged 9/11truthers (“super nanocomposite thermite burns forever”) only shows how desperate the Govt is to hide the China Syndrome Aftermath.

Yes, I do think that the evidence of the molten steel burning for long periods of time does
suggest that something quite out of the ordinary happened. THERMITE has been identified as
being present in the debris. I think it's a mistake here to question the sincerity of the
9/11 truthers, if that was what was intended -- especially trying to connect them to government
conspirators!

Meanwhile, I don't think it would have been unusual for them to have used a number of different
means to bring down the WTC. Even, perhaps, testing some methods.

Re the use of anything nuclear, I made this comment above in response to post #75....

I also think your third paragraph and question about "control" very relevant because
the WTC sat on a "BATHTUB" which held back the Hudson River ---

This slurry wall, the three-foot-thick, eleven-acre rectangle of scarred concrete within the pit, was built in 1967 to seal the Trade Center's foundation against seepage from the nearby Hudson River, whose eastern shoreline used to slice right down this site. The bathtub, the workers called it, and still do. It was held in place by more than a thousand steel-cable tiebacks fed through six-inch holes drilled through the walls, then grouted and jack-yanked at a 45 degree angle deep into the bedrock until the seven basement and subbasement levels of the World Trade Center were erected. The buildings themselves, once raised, held the bathtub in place.

and whatever the method, it seemed designed to keep that area from being demolished.

Unfortunately, I don't think there are really ever any quick "bingos!" with these conspiracies.
It will take time to prove and/or disprove all of the theories.

At this point, anything is possible and "vaporized" certainly brings to mind a futuristic
weapon -- such as the Microwave weapons which have been developed -- and suggested by some.

[spooked911]

159. the WTC1 spire did not go down in a top to bottom collapse

likely because it was nuked near the base

[OnTheOtherHand]

161. the spire?

My expectation would be that both towers would collapse from near the points of impact, and then the tops of the towers (above the points of impact) would, possibly, crush whatever was below.

This purported footage of the collapse of WTC 1 is broadly consistent with my expectation, although it's hard to tell exactly what is happening near the top of the tower. It certainly doesn't appear to me that the tower is collapsing from being "nuked near the base."

In evidence-based argumentation, it's often useful to explain why one thinks evidence is pertinent to choosing among alternative hypotheses. I don't see how stop action of the very top of the tower could disambiguate between collapse (1) near the impact point versus (2) near the base. For that, I reason, one needs footage of the tower below the impact point.

Comments?

[Old and In the Way]

168. Why use nukes?

Seems like that would be very risky. NYC must have lots of sensors to sniff out radiation sources. If there were nukes going off, I can't see how detectors wouldn't have been tripped all over the island. If I were planning on taking down WTC but wanted to minimize collateral damage and keep it plausible that the collapse was entirely due to the plane crashes, I'd blow out the foundation backbone 1st, followed by timed core charges starting close or just below the crash floor, located every 20 floors or so. That way everything comes down in a controlled manner with each timed charge hidden by debris falling from above.

[bottomtheweaver]

172. I think nukes offered several unbeatable advantages.

For one, they eliminated much of the debris -- judging from photos of the ridiculously modest debris piles, at least 75% of it, probably much more -- which a) facilitated a quick cleanup, b) disappeared most of the demolition evidence, c) minimized damage to highly profitable surrounding structures like the WFC, and best of all, d) got rid of that oh-so-devastating asbestos problem by sprinkling it all over Manhattan and the rest of the eastern seaboard.

Another reason may have been to spare the "bathtub" from being ruptured by falling debris. In fact the basement levels were left largely intact, if you remember those photos of Bugs Bunny in the WB store. That may also have been the reason why for these gigantic structures, a Vegas style collapse-into-the-basement demolition would have been ruled out.

But I think the main reason is there was too damn much of them. "Light" their construction may have been, but there was still a tremendous amount of steel and other materials in each tower, which were colossal, and could conceivably have totaled thousands of nearby buildings including City Hall and Wall Street.

Radiation: how do we know there wasn't radiation?

Risk: the US mil has apparently been using SADMs for decades so I guess they figured the benefits outweighed the risks, and by their lights, it looks like they were right.

[vincent_vega_lives]

175. Radiation

GZ would be screeming hot.

Every time a FDNY vehicle went near it the dosimeters would start alaming...for one.

With all the vistors to GZ since 2001 we would expect a significant number of them to come down with radiation sickness soon after their visit to NYC...not to mention the people who work/communte daily nearby.

[bottomtheweaver]

176. And?

GZ was hot.

What if they did?

First responders have been getting sick and dying in alarming numbers.

[AZCat]

177. I don't think you grasp the difference.

The radioactivity from a nuclear weapon would have been quite obvious, much less the various initial effects of a nuclear detonation. First responders would not be dying now - they would have died years ago.

[OnTheOtherHand]

178. but, but, but aren't these new SPECIAL nuclear weapons?

Weapons that somehow can vaporize huge quantities of steel (my impression is that that's the claim) without high levels of residual radiation? that selectively create just a few signs of EMP and radiation exposure -- enough to tip off Anonymous Physicists?

[AZCat]

179. You're right - I had forgotten about them!

NWO engineering school was a long time ago, and my memory isn't so good anymore.

And yes, I too think that is the claim - that, instead of using conventional explosives (like thermite/thermate) the perpetrators decided to use the all-purpose 4th Generation Nuclear Weapons to vaporize the steel structure of the towers. Because bringing them down in a heap wasn't enough. :eyes:

[OnTheOtherHand]

183. a small mystery of the OP:

It is also documented fact that since the 1960’s, and Project Plowshare, low radiation nukes-- and later neutron bombs-- have been available, and were planned for excavation projects and such.... And Plowshare, and neutron bombs, prove low radiation nukes have been available for decades.

Silly me, I thought neutron bombs were "enhanced radiation weapons," so I don't see how they would prove anything about "low radiation nukes." (They are low yield relative to other nuclear bombs -- that's sort of the point: less boom, more bzzzzzzzzzzt.) But I'm merely pseudonymous, and not a physicist at all, so what do I know?

As for Project Plowshare, the lowest yield I see there is 380 tons, so it doesn't really seem on point, regardless of the radiation characteristics. (I think it's not very useful to talk about "low radiation" or "low yield" without even crudely quantifying the meaning(s) of "low.")

I'm not saying that these considerations rebut the Anonymous Physicist's hypothesis: rather, the hypothesis as expressed in the OP is far too vague to warrant further evaluation. I am not a physicist, but I'm a quant, and I like to see hypotheses at a higher degree of elaboration than 'betcha the gummint can do anything.' I'm sure you understand what I mean.

[bottomtheweaver]

180. The difference between what two sets of data?

You say the radioactivity would have been obvious. The point of the information presented here and elsewhere is that it is obvious. So what data can you present on the effects of SADMs specifically that would suggest otherwise?

[Realityhack]

182. No.

You and the others here have not presented any information that points to high levels of radiation or radiation as the source of heat at ground zero etc.

You have not shown one sample of radioactive material, one lab that reported massive changes in background radiation, etc. etc.

There are no 'two sets of data' there is one set of data and one group of ignorant people drawing conclusions from it that are unsupported if one knows even the first thing about nuclear materials.

[bottomtheweaver]

184. Okay, but in the absence of data, you basically have faith based forensics.

The data that is available -- the photography, witness and first responder accounts, cancer spikes, and so on -- all point to nukes. You say the data doesn't, but you don't have any. That leaves you with faith. Fine, flaunt it, but I lost all faith in Bushler spin about seven years ago.

[Realityhack]

185. No

The data does not point to nukes. And in fact it rules them out.

[bottomtheweaver]

186. You might as well add "praise the Lord"

because without data all you have is faith, and you still haven't presented any data to support your claims.

[AZCat]

187. Why do you think his data is any different from yours?

He just draws different conclusions (i.e. the correct ones).

[bottomtheweaver]

188. He hasn't presented any data. n/t

[AZCat]

189. He shouldn't have to.

It should be fucking obvious. Where are all your burn and blast injuries? Your damaged ear drums from the pressure wave? Your thousands of deaths from radiation exposure?

[bottomtheweaver]

190. It is obvious. From all the data presented so far, the towers were nuked.

Congratulations.

[AZCat]

191. Your conclusion is obvious only to the willfully ignorant.

Congratulations on identifying yourself as such.

[bottomtheweaver]

192. Another faith-based conclusion. Amen. n/t

[AZCat]

193. Says the same person who staunchly supports a massively-flawed hypothesis.

It just goes to show there's no point in arguing with the willfully ignorant, much like trying to wrestle a pig in shit.

[Realityhack]

194. Incorrect.

Apparently you are not able or willing to read the thread or search others on the subject.

I don't know what nuke 'theory' you personally subscribe to but I have pointed out that the data specifically rules out the scenario in the OP as it is self contradictory and does not fit the evidence.

For example:
Nuclear blasts capable of 'vaporizing' (definition of terms fail) the core of the twin towers would have a massive blast radius. We do not however hear such a blast, nor do we see it propagate through the debris cloud.
Nor do we see the other side effects of a nuclear blast like a heat wave or EMP pulse. the consumer video cameras keep going just fine despite spooked's claims that cars were destroyed by such a pulse. Thus his claim is contradicted by the facts.
Nuclear material in quantities large enough to create significant heat in the post collapse pile would result in MASSIVE radiation levels. Radiation burns and sickness would have been rampant among responders and construction workers. Not months later but within hours.
Every lab in the north east would have picked up the increase in background radiation.
And there would be seismic evidence as well.

All of this information exists and it rules out nuclear weapons.
I am not responsible for doing your basic research for you. If you want to make the extraordinary claim that nuclear weapons were used you must provide compelling evidence that they were. So far all you have provided is hand waving and 'it's obvious'.
Show me compelling data.

[bottomtheweaver]

195. Still no data, just off-the-telly talking points.

Look the point I'm getting at is that the data you might present, if you bothered to, correlates to a particular type of reaction produced by a particular type of weapon, not to a SADM or similar device.

[Realityhack]

213. What an incoherent post.

You are asking me to prove that some new mystery nuke with unknown properties was not used? Why don't we just argue about god in the theology forum?

If you think a nuke could have been used show us the math. For any nuclear reaction fast or slow with which I am familiar the data simply does not fit.

[vincent_vega_lives]

181. Not as in temperature!!!

As in counts per minute! You know, gamma, alpha, beta emitters?

What if they did? It would trigger a local radiological response.

From silica particulate inhilation hazards. Not from radiation sickness which would have been symtoms hours after exposure at the levels caused by even a small yeild detonation in downtown NYC.

[vincent_vega_lives]

173. low-radiation yielding nukes have also been around for decades

Would LOVE to see the source of this one, and how it works.

When googled get deluge of Truth sites.

[Bolo Boffin]

174. Hush-a-Boom technology

With new, improved Mute-tron radiation.

[BooBluePotion]

196. This is the most important yet darkest subject

in American History. My opinion so far is that Nuclear force was not the only force used to destroy the columns. C4, Thermate, and Electric Shock waves were used to zap and evaporate over 500,000 tons of steel, concrete, people and office furniture before our eyes in 15 seconds or less you can't register a DU profile in this amount of time. The top of the south tower disintegrated into thin mid air leaving black dust to infect the lungs of NYC's rescue workers. There are over 2,000 bodies or parts of bodies missing from the collapse combined. Several fragments of bone were blasted on top of nearby buildings a result of controlled C4/Nuke explosion. Before the North Tower impact the C4 was timed to explode even inside of WTC 7 as reported by Barry Jennings.

[Bolo Boffin]

197. And then Dick Cheney pissed on it for good measure? n/t

[spooked911]

198. More on mini-nukes/micro-nukes

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/03/low-yield-mini-or-micro-nukes-that-may.html

by The Anonymous Physicist

In the debate of how small nuclear bombs could have destroyed the WTC, some (likely intel shills) post that “if nukes were used, Manhattan would have been vaporized.” We shall see that the U.S. regime has admitted to plenty of very small nukes that wouldn’t have done that— but could have “done” the WTC.

The above photo of the W48 nuclear artillery shell is telling. Wikipedia states, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48 “The W48 was an American nuclear artillery shell, fired from a standard 6.1 inch howitzer. It was manufactured starting in 1963, and all units were retired in 1992. The W48 was 6.1 inches in diameter and 33.3 inches long. It came in two models, Mod 0 (135 were officially produced) and Mod 1 (925 were officially produced), which are reported to have weighed 118 and 128 pounds respectively. It had an explosive yield equivalent to 72 tons of TNT (0.072 kiloton), which is very small for a nuclear weapon.” This shell fit into the military’s regular 155 mm. howitzer.

Note that this yield is about 300 times smaller than the Hiroshima blast. And, of course, the small nukes used in the WTC were emplaced in the center. Note how small this artillery shell’s diameter is, and note its 33.3 inch length. An emplaced nuke with just the “gadget” itself would not need the outer shell, and would be even smaller.

Now let’s look a the U.S. Navy and Marines project called Special Atomic Demolition Munition, which was to be used for demolishing “enemy structures.” http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Special:Atomic:Demolition:Munition.htm

“The main was the Mk-54, a cylinder 40 by 60 centimeters that weighed 68 kilograms“. It’s yield was 10 tons up to one kiloton. 300 SADMs—note the pronunciation is like Saddam— were assembled and remained in the US arsenal until 1989.” Note the very small yield of only 10 tons of TNT.

More on the W54 nuke is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

“Early known versions could destroy a two block area, with an estimated yield comparable to approximately 10 tons of TNT.” Here is the W54 portrayed as a Backpack Nuke:


Note that the Wiki article actually compares the W54 nuke with the OKC bomb(s)! “…the smallest yield version of the W54 (10 tons) is two to four times as powerful as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing…” Now why does Wikipedia (CIA) feel the need to try to prove that the W54 mini-nuke was too small to have perpetrated the OKC bombing? They doth protest too much, methinks. And if Wiki is doing comparisons—WHY NOT THEN COMPARE THE W54 TO THE MUCH LARGER WTC DESTRUCTION?

For completeness sake, I cite the PTB’ beloved 33 used as a nuke. See here-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W33_(nuclear_weapon) and here-- http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Nuclear:artillery.htm. Officially again, “Only one type of artillery round other than the W-48 was produced in large numbers, the W-33 for use in a 203 mm shell. Around 2,000 warheads of this type were manufactured from 1957-65, each 940 mm long and weighing around 109 kg. They were fitted in the T-317 AFAP and fired from a specialised howitzer. The warhead yield was greater than the W-48 and it was made in four types, three yielding 5 to 10 kt and one 40 kt.” But this W33 nuke has too large a yield to have been employed on 9/11.

One wonders what happened to all these nukes? My previous articles here-- wtcdemolition.blogspot.com -- detailed how such mini- or micro-nukes were used in the basement, and at various points in the towers before, during, and possibly after tower (and other WTC building) “collapses.” Such nukes as the W54, and more secret smaller ones readily fit the forensic destruction evidence, and the aftermath.

And for those who lie and still say that destruction of the towers was too quiet to have been done via nukes, I repeat the following eye- and ear-witness testimony from one of my articles. http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/11/eyewitness-testimony-of-firefighters.html During the commencement of WTC2 destruction, FDNY Lt. Robert Larocco stated: “The next second I heard that loudest noise in the world that I was describing before getting louder and louder.” (snip) “It was the loudest noise I've ever heard in my life. It was in both ears. Kind of like those rockets that they launch the space shuttles with, it was like I had one going off in each ear. When I thought it was the loudest noise I ever heard, every second it was just increasing getting louder and louder and louder.”

The other things that singular article of mine contains includes: Fire Dept. eyewitnesses seeing pulverized ash before “collapse” (from the early sub-basement nuke most likely), evidence of EMP (from nukes) during “collapse”, several firemen thinking that the great heat impinging on them— far from any fire— meant they were being nuked, and even seeing evidence that people were pushed out of the towers, and did not jump, and seismic events far larger than the regime officially released.

Finally, the above-cited articles officially proclaim that “In 1991 the US unilaterally withdrew its nuclear artillery shells from service , and Russia responded in kind in 1992. The US removed around 1,300 nuclear shells from Europe.”

So thousands of small nukes were removed from “official” service in the decade before 9/11/2001. Is there any proof that they were all actually completely destroyed? Including the ones that could destroy only a “2 block area.” This also begs the question about the likely existence of more secret, smaller nuclear devices. Since a Gov’t scientist has admitted they experimented with nukes down to a yield of only several pounds of TNT (http://www.house.gov/jec/hearings/dualuse/leitner.htm), it is easy to see how all this demonstrates the existence of micro-nukes. And subsequently all the forensic evidence indicates the WTC was destroyed by small nuclear devices (likely with subsidiary conventional explosives to prevent “blow through”), as demonstrated here-- wtcdemolition.blogspot.com. And further, the evidence indicates that the China Syndrome resulted because of this. See here-- wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com.

[bottomtheweaver]

199. thanks spooked.. funny how the thermate police

seemed to be everywhere for awhile. Let's hope the real truth gets out soon. Personally I'm hoping Hugo Chavez gets wind of it and gives a sizzling speech at the UN letting the world that he knows what we know.

[OnTheOtherHand]

200. where's the physics?

Now why does Wikipedia (CIA) feel the need to try to prove that the W54 mini-nuke was too small to have perpetrated the OKC bombing?

This seems like a sorry waste of a physics degree.

[spooked911]

201. going for the non-sequitor prize?

what does that legitimate question have to do with his physics degree?

[OnTheOtherHand]

202. perhaps you're new to the forum

A lot of us are waiting for someone to set out a detailed hypothesis, with calculations, of what size and sequence of nuclear detonations would explain the collapse of the towers.

It really doesn't matter whether the person who does so has a physics degree or not. However, I do find it bizarre that someone who identifies him/herself solely as a physicist spends so much time ranting at Wikipedia and "shills" and so little time making arguments informed by physics. He might as well be an Anonymous Sociologist or Anonymous Pediatrician, as far as I can tell.

[spooked911]

203. I've been coming here longer than you

and the calculations you ask for aren't necessary-- in large part because other evidence indicates nukes. And AP made the important conclusion that the extreme heat at ground zero was due to the nuclear "china syndrome"-- which is based on physics.

[LARED]

204. Well why didn't you say so earlier

If the AP made an important conclusion the the extreme heat was due to nukes, we can all just go home, end of discussion.

[OnTheOtherHand]

205. yes, you have, and it amazes me

I should be used to it by now, but how can you be less interested in whether your own argument makes any sense than I am? No, it's worse: if you haven't run the numbers, can you even be sure what your argument is?

And AP made the important conclusion that the extreme heat at ground zero was due to the nuclear "china syndrome"-- which is based on physics.

I'm not sure how to parse this. The china syndrome is based on physics? Shrug. AP's conclusion is based on physics? Great. Show us the physics.

[spooked911]

206. "Show us the physics"

please see the original post and related links on the China Syndrome

Note-- the physics here is concepts more than equations. But the concepts themselves are sufficient to prove the case.

[OnTheOtherHand]

207. no, they are not

But the concepts themselves are sufficient to prove the case.

What could this even mean? That only a "China Syndrome" can account for the persistent heat at the WTC? Conceptually, we know that isn't true, because we have examples of things being very hot for extended periods without nuclear reactions.

As I'm sure I'm not the first to try to explain to you, the other offered supporting evidence is far from compelling. In general, the OP offers a series of anecdotal handfuls of events said to be attributable only to a nuclear reaction. The unanswered -- nay, unasked -- question is whether the magnitudes of these anecdotal handfuls are consistent with the presumed cause.

[AZCat]

208. Maybe it's just me...

but I don't trust claims about physics that can't at least provide orders of magnitude.

[OnTheOtherHand]

209. yeah, I'm not familiar with non-quantitative physics

I'm happy with back-of-the-envelope calculations when appropriate. I'm pretty puzzled by people who scream, "We don't need no effin' envelopes!" Or whatever.

[spooked911]

211. what do you want "orders of magnitude" for?

any particular aspect here?

[Realityhack]

212. Your need to ask that question shows how little you have thought about your scenario n/t

[spooked911]

210. Lessons from Hiroshima & Nagasaki for WTC Nuclear Survivors— The Remarkable Double Nuke Survivors

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2009/04/lessons-from-hiroshima-nagasaki-for-wtc.html

by The Anonymous Physicist

Doubters of the extensive WTC nuclear demolition scenario (see http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com) that this author has delineated, claim that any nukes used “would have had to have killed everybody in Manhattan instantly.” Of course, this is deliberate disinformation, as this did not happen to many residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While many thousands died, many thousands did not. There are survivors to this day.

Perhaps most instructive of the ability to survive being nuked— provided one is not in or very near the hypocenter, nor ingests or inhales radionuclides— are at least three known men who survived the double nuking of BOTH Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. The tale of these Japanese “double-hibakusha” is described here: http://timesonline.typepad.com/times_tokyo_weblog/2009/03/the-luckiest-or.html They survived the first nuclear bomb due to such factors as location, shielding, and prompt medical attention. They survived the second nuke due to such factors as luck, and brilliantly deduced nuclear bomb survival methods.

After surviving the Hiroshima nuking, these three Mitsubishi workers then took the train to their home town of Nagasaki. One worker was being verbally abused by his boss who was saying that it wasn’t possible for “just one bomb” to have destroyed Hiroshima. At that very moment, the Nagasaki A-Bomb went off; and the berated worker took immediate action and did not care to try to help his abusive boss. He may have survived his second nuking because of bandaging on his face and body from the first nuking! These bandages were blasted away, but their presence during the flash may have saved this worker’s life. Another of the three Hiroshima survivors had learned well what to do and jumped into a river at the first sign of the Nagasaki nuclear flash, and stayed in the water for an hour. This radiation shielding led to his surviving his second nuking well.

One surivivor is now 89, but had an infant son in Nagasaki who died of cancer at age 56. His father attributes this to his son’s being nuked at age 6 months. The tale of these three historic figures includes their description of survivors left with hanging skin, swollen faces and other horrors. As described here, they thus have much in common with some WTC 9/11 survivors, and responders, including Felipe David and several others. How ironic it is that the article notes that “the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had traveled to New York to make an appeal for disarmament on behalf of the survivors of the atomic bomb. But the meeting had ended in failure…” If these mayors only knew the truth of the nuking of the WTC and its China Syndrome Aftermath.

But there is one major difference between the Japanese and American nuclear bomb survivors. The medical doctors and lawyers for 9/11 survivors and sick responders are— either out of ignorance or deliberate disinformation— NOT telling the WTC survivors what may be causing their illnesses; while the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not denied. Yes, even the lawyers for thousands of sick, dying responders are just claiming that all the rare cancers and other illnesses are solely from exposure/inhalation of conventional, chemical toxins. These sick and dying responders deserve to know the truth of their highly probable radiation exposure. Their physicians may also be better able to help them if this were known.

Please reach out to 9/11 responders and inform them of this crucial information. See that their doctors and lawyers stop the mis- or disinformation they put out, and that radiation exposure is included in the list of things that these people were exposed to. Tell the WTC survivors to reach out to their few surviving brothers and sisters in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, before they become history. For it is the same monstrous regime that did this to all these people. And the peoples of the world need to know this. This Ultimate Truth needs to be brought before an international court of law. The American regime must be seen for what it is: “Hitler with nukes and ICBMS.” And the American people must wake up and see the true, hideous nature of their regime—which will, and has, nuked them as readily as it did the Japanese. And American military service people must also be informed that this mass-murdering regime nuked its own servicemen in the Port Chicago nuke of 1944.

The ONLY thing that might wake up both the American masses and the American military to take the appropriate action against the rulers of this evil, illegal, unconstitutional empire is the revelation of the nuking of the WTC, and the China Syndrome Aftermath.

[bottomtheweaver]

214. Bingo. The truth is more horrible than most are willing to admit

which is why Jones keeps waving his magic supernanothermates in front of his adoring fans, and they keep eating it up.

[scrinmaster]

215. It was really an invisible Godzilla.

About as likely as your bullshit conclusion, spooked.

[spooked911]

216. ho ho ho

hope you enjoy your head buried in the sand--

or whatever perks you get for doing this if you're not simply ignorant or in denial

[spooked911]

217. kick

[defendandprotect]

218. What about particle beam weapons . . . ?

[eyl]

219. What about them? n/t

[defendandprotect]

220. What, what about them?

[spooked911]

221. "hanging skin" is pathognomonic for nuke exposure

I'd say that is pretty good evidence for nukes by itself.

An account of the Hiroshima nuclear bombing:
""Suddenly I felt as if I were thrown into an iron melting pot. There was a tremendous illumination all around and everything was glowing. When I stood up, the skin of the left side of my face which had been facing the flash was hanging down.

"Without knowing what I was doing, I went into the river nearby, shoes, backpack and all. One student there asked me how he looked. He looked as if rags were hanging down his face like the meltings of a candle. Obviously, I looked the same but didn’t want to know it. While I was in the river, the atmosphere took on an eerie silence and became dark—like dusk at wintertime. I started hearing voices and shouts from others, but in this eerie atmosphere it was like I was hearing mosquitoes.

"I followed the crowd out of the river and began climbing the side of Mount Hijiyama nearby. When we got to the top and looked out over the city, I saw that all the houses and buildings had become completely flat and fires were starting in places.

"A group of soldiers walked by. The skin was hanging from their faces and hands. They held their hands aloft before their chests like pictures of Japanese ghosts. Their caps had protected part of their hair and skin, but below the caps, their skin was completely peeled like reptiles’. It was such an eerie scene—these soldiers marching toward us like a group of ghosts—that bystanders became terrified and suddenly began reciting Buddhist chants, commonly sung at funerals. It was clear that something very strange—'out of this world'—had happened, but I had no idea what it was."
http://www.americancatholic.org/Features/WWII/feature0183.asp

[Bolo Boffin]

222. hanging skin is not indicative of nuclear attack

You are affirming the consequent. Hanging skin is something that happens from any severe burn. Felipe David was caught in a fireball.

[spooked911]

224. no he wasn't-- he didn't describe any fire

and the idea that a large jet fuel fireball exploded in the basement is rather improbable anyway

[vincent_vega_lives]

223. you know

no plane at the Pentagon was a whole lot less boring than this shyte. It least there was some honest if misapplied conjecture and pseudo analysis.

[spooked911]

225. much more here

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/

The Crucial Differences in the Nuclear 9/11 Theories-- A Call To Eliminate Nuclear 9/11 Mis- or Dis-Information & Attain Completeness and Fit all the Known Evidence

On the Issue of Nuclear Demolition of the WTC and Radiation, from "Anonymous Physicist" (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Original WTC Nuke Thesis from "Anonymous Physicist" (by The Anonymous Physicist)

If the WTC Nuclear Destruction Had the China Syndrome Aftermath, Why Didn’t Hiroshima?

WTC7 Demolition: Conventional, or Nuclear After All-- and the Speculative Nuclear Borer Hypothesis (by The Anonymous Physicist)

The “China Syndrome” Came to New York City on 9/11 (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Hanging Skin and Nuclear Blasts. Where in the World is Felipe David-- and Did He Survive Exposure to Nuclear Radiation? (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Eyewitness Testimony of Firefighters Believing They Were Nuked on 9/11 as well as early WTC7 Destruction, EMP, non-impact plane flyby, and people being pushed out of a WTC tower

More Evidence & Testimony Indicating Nuclear Blasts, Nuclear Radiation, & China Syndrome at the WTC (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Proof of the Existence of Mini-Nukes and Micro-Nukes (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Brief Summary of Evidence of Nuclear bombs used at the WTC on 9/11/01 (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Was the First Atomic Bomb Exploded on an American Town by the American Govt?

Could 9/11 Have Been Done With FAE/Thermobaric Explosives? (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Breakthroughs Toward Attaining A Complete Understanding of the Nuking of the WTC on 9/11-- The Likelihood of Sabotaged, Fizzled Nukes (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Basement Nukes and Top-Down Demolition (by Spooked)

Breakthrough: The Story Of Cathy T, & The Large Earthquake That Was Felt One Mile Away When WTC1 Was “Hit”! (by The Anonymous Physicist)

More On the Immediate and Continous Radiation Lowering, and Shielding, Techniques Used at the WTC, after 9/11 (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Exposing The “Red Mercury” Nuclear Scam, & Its Possible Use In Future Bogus Wars, & Other Crucial Matters On Nuclear 911, and About Mercury (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Breakthroughs Towards Attaining A Complete Understanding of the Nuking of the WTC on 9/11, and its China Syndrome Aftermath: Part II (by The Anonymous Physicist)

On The Existence of Mini- or Micro-Nukes, Fizzled Nukes, 9/11 & The China Syndrome (by The Anonymous Physicist)

A Summary of Evidence of EMPs (Electromagnetic Pulses) from the Nukes Used in the WTC on 9/11 (by The Anonymous Physicist)

WTC Destruction Theories: "DEW" versus Thermite/Thermate/Super Thermate versus Milli-Nukes/Micro-Nukes (by Spooked)

Ground Zero Smoking Cannon: Where Are All the Core Columns and Beams??? (by Spooked)

Micro-Nukes in the WTC--Creating The China Syndrome: Important Matters of Completeness & Plausibility (by The Anonymous Physicist)

Did Two Nuclear Reactors, not Nuclear Bombs, Destroy the WTC on 9/11? Review of William Tahil’s Book, “Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the WTC”, and of his Reactor Hypothesis (by The Anonymous Physicist)

The Effect of a Low Yield Nuke on a Steel Structure

The Fall of the WTC1 Spire and the Intact WTC1 Stairwell: Proof of Demolition Near Bottom of the Tower

Further Observations on WTC1 Stairwell B-- 1. Did Pasquale Buzzelli Surf Down The “Collapse”—or Do Conflicting Reports Collapse the O.C.T.? 2. Does the Revealed “Upward Wind” During “Collapse” Prove the Final “Cleaner Nuke”?

[vincent_vega_lives]

227. I got a title of your book

"The Day America was Nuked and Nobody Noticed: The Secret Nuking of NYC by the US Government"

:wtf:

[spooked911]

228. that is good but I wouldn't say no one noticed

and it is obviously a secret-- as are many things

[snooper2]

226. can't fix crazy can ya?

nt