Study concludes explosives used on 911

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: neutronflux

At least he hasn't done like so many ATS nukers and proceeded on to 'micro fusion bombs' or 'anti matter bombs'. Yet.

Did I ever tell you about the micro hush-a-boom anti-matter bombs?

Hope not, then you may have to take extreme measures to keep the secret. Like fabricating knocked over light poles at the pentagon?

a reply to: neutronflux

It must have been the flyover and repainted A3 Skywarrior that tipped you off to the light poles. We thought that we got away with that.

The rationalization is beautiful!

originally posted by: Salander
The rationalization is beautiful!

It may be, but you still haven't addressed the issues of yield, location, and complete lack of any effects resembling a nuclear weapon. I hope you have given up on the Thorium concept as it makes your sources look like the idiots they are.

a reply to: pteridine

And you ignore and/or deny the issues of lateral ejection of large pieces, the pulverization of concrete, the unique sicknesses and deaths of those first responders, and several other factors.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

And you ignore and/or deny the issues of lateral ejection of large pieces, the pulverization of concrete, the unique sicknesses and deaths of those first responders, and several other factors.

What "several other factors?" If you want to convince people of your theory, things have to be consistent with a nuclear explosion. Start by describing the location of the bomb. Then suggest a yield. Then explain why there was no fireball, gamma radiation, shock wave, or fallout consistent with a nuclear weapon.
There is really no reason for a nuke. Gravity did it all.

Not to mention 1368 feet of poop in a pipe is close to 600 Psi but what does that mean?? No poop in the world trade center ??? Or water ???

600 PSI out of a 24" pipe is a lot of poop under pressure. But what the poop do I know

Have a poopy day



And remember poop falls down hill

a reply to: Salander
The concrete was FLOORING GRADE which fell from 110, 109,108 ..............floors up.

Now, you want to speculate about "how might I go about compromising the integrity of a building in a loud, grotesque military fashion without it being totally obvious that it just happened, and without leaving any obvious crap behind, and in a way that might be doable without renting every office in the place", then there might be other things to consider.

It's just that nukes aren't your answer.

However, it's still too unwieldy, and it requires a lot of things to fall into place like Swiss clockwork that would never happen in a real world. And I still don't grasp the motive to destroy the buildings, other than the official story.

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

And you ignore and/or deny the issues of lateral ejection of large pieces, the pulverization of concrete, the unique sicknesses and deaths of those first responders, and several other factors.

What "several other factors?" If you want to convince people of your theory, things have to be consistent with a nuclear explosion. Start by describing the location of the bomb. Then suggest a yield. Then explain why there was no fireball, gamma radiation, shock wave, or fallout consistent with a nuclear weapon.
There is really no reason for a nuke. Gravity did it all.

Molten iron in the belly for 3 months. Lateral ejection of massive pieces at high velocity. Strangely burned vehicles. Chemical residue of nuclear fission. Disease consistent with a radiation event.

All those things that contradict the silly notion that gravity did it all. All those things you deny.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Lately I've been reading that the floors were actually made of Perlite, not traditional concrete.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

And you ignore and/or deny the issues of lateral ejection of large pieces, the pulverization of concrete, the unique sicknesses and deaths of those first responders, and several other factors.

What "several other factors?" If you want to convince people of your theory, things have to be consistent with a nuclear explosion. Start by describing the location of the bomb. Then suggest a yield. Then explain why there was no fireball, gamma radiation, shock wave, or fallout consistent with a nuclear weapon.
There is really no reason for a nuke. Gravity did it all.

Molten iron in the belly for 3 months. Lateral ejection of massive pieces at high velocity. Strangely burned vehicles. Chemical residue of nuclear fission. Disease consistent with a radiation event.

All those things that contradict the silly notion that gravity did it all. All those things you deny.

There is no evidence of molten iron for three months. Lateral ejection was the result of simple levers as the supporting floors collapsed and the outer walls hinged outwards. The 'strangely burned vehicles' were just burned. There was no chemical residue of nuclear fission. Disease consistent with a radiation event would have thousands of victims who would have not been at ground zero.
1. Describing the location of the bomb.
2. What was the proposed yield?
3. Explain why there was no fireball, gamma radiation, shock wave, or fallout consistent with a nuclear weapon.

originally posted by: Salander

Molten iron in the belly for 3 months. Lateral ejection of massive pieces at high velocity. Strangely burned vehicles. Chemical residue of nuclear fission. Disease consistent with a radiation event.

All those things that contradict the silly notion that gravity did it all. All those things you deny.

The 'strangely burned vehicles' are the ones that were left running when the cloud of airborne debris came through.

There was no 'chemical residue of nuclear fission'. Thank God. Or the place would be off limits for the next 1000 years.

You can't say "well, they got cancer, and you can get cancer from radiation, so it was radiation".

a reply to: Salander

Concrete at WTC was special lightweight mix to reduce structural weight

Floors were 4 inch concrete (5 inch on mechanical floors)

The 10 cm thick concrete slabs were apparently a lightweight form of concrete typically used in high-rises. Its density and exact composition remain unknown, but such lightweight concrete is typically 60% as dense as concrete used in roads and sidewalks. The floors were the only major part of these mostly steel buildings that contained concrete.

a reply to: Bedlam

The human ability to rationalize inconvenient facts has always been most fascinating.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Bedlam

The human ability to rationalize inconvenient facts has always been most fascinating.

You demonstrate it well.

eta: you finally coming back to your thorium fantasy? I noticed you were sort of hesitant to name your "chemical residue"

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Bedlam

The human ability to rationalize inconvenient facts has always been most fascinating.

Especially when a person can act with intellectual dishonesty in they ignore their questions are directly answered over and over again, but will not answer simple direct questions.

Ignores the established science that natural material used in buildings contain naturally occurring radioactive material.

What was the material used in the nuclear device?

Where was the bomb placed?

What was the yield/size of the device.

Why no boom?

No evidence of a pressure wave/blast.

When was the device set off in relation to the time line of collapse?

Why no fallout/signature fission products?

What does thorium have to do as a fission product/proof of a nuclear bomb?

a reply to: neutronflux

Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I do not pretend to know all the specifics about those silly and distracting questions you ask. I have never claimed to be an expert.

What I am certain of however, is that the NIST report is dishonest and invalid, and that the buildings did NOT come down by office fires and gravity. You obviously buy into that bull feces, but I do not.

Some sort of controlled demolition caused what was observed there, and given all the facts observed, highly advanced nuclear devices were employed.

The official story is utterly impossible, and the only plausible explanation involves nuclear events. Only that theory accommodates all that was observed.

a reply to: Salander

After 15 years you just know, but cannot make a credible argument to support all that you believe?

Well come back when you can answer...

What was the material used in the nuclear device?

Where was the bomb placed?

What was the yield/size of the device.

Why no boom?

No evidence of a pressure wave/blast.

When was the device set off in relation to the time line of collapse?

Why no fallout/signature fission products?

What does thorium have to do as a fission product/proof of a nuclear bomb detonation?

a reply to: neutronflux

No friend, the argument has been made by many besides me. The evidence is ample, the facts are many.

But a person in denial, like yourself, is simply incapable of perceiving it. Your cognitive dissonance short-circuits your cognitive functions, your ability to analyze the facts.

And for that reason, our conversations end with this post.