New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions

a reply to: Salander

WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AD NASEUM, GRUBER ……..


AGAIN - the smallest nuclear weapon fielded was the WK 54 for the "DAVY CROCKETT" recoiless launcher

It had a nominal yield of some 10 to 20 tons (.01 - .02 kilotons)

The lethal radiation radius is some 350 - 400 meters ( 500 rems) Much of southern Manhattan would have been
irradiated and thousands, if not tens of thousands of radiation casualties been recorded

Here is nuclear effects calculator - can play around with yields, and locations (nuke your favorite city)

Notice casualty radius and estimated casualty counts

www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Salander

WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AD NASEUM, GRUBER ……..


AGAIN - the smallest nuclear weapon fielded was the WK 54 for the "DAVY CROCKETT" recoiless launcher

It had a nominal yield of some 10 to 20 tons (.01 - .02 kilotons)

The lethal radiation radius is some 350 - 400 meters ( 500 rems) Much of southern Manhattan would have been
irradiated and thousands, if not tens of thousands of radiation casualties been recorded

That's the smallest bomb that's been declassified. We've been hearing about tiny bombs that fit into a suitcase for decades now.

I liked your nuclear effects calculator. It doesn't take into account modern bombs that have a shaped charge. Also, the video said the blast cone radius was further modified by directing the "fizzle" up through the elevator shafts creating a sort of nuclear flamethrower.

a reply to: toms54

Again, there is a threshold on the minimum required nuclear grade material needed to create the nuclear reaction that fuels a nuclear bomb. The nuclear reaction is triggered by using conventional explosives to slam the nuclear material together to yield the nuclear explosion. Not enough weapons grade radioactive material, you only got a dirty conventional bomb.

And....

Still no audio, video, seismic evidence of detentions powerful enough to cut steel.

And again...
Is it false to state the guy in the video was implying the bomb left enough radiation behind to cause 1,000,000 tons of rubble to be smoldering hot for up to 3 months? How does a micro nuke do that? The best parallel would be fukushima. If something radioactive was keeping 1,000,000 tons smolder for three months, you need a nuclear reactor’s amount of nuclear fuel. If the smoldering was caused by the heat of radioactive decay, the resultant radiation would be killing people working the pile in hours, not years. The radiation would be easily detected.

The guy contradicted and discredited himself in the first 11 minutes of the first video.

a reply to: toms54

Also, the video said the blast cone radius was further modified by directing the "fizzle" up through the elevator shafts creating a sort of nuclear flamethrower.

So now it’s fizzle no flash nuclear bombs? Really? How do you control and slow a nuclear explosion to create a nuclear flame thrower? You mean like a cutting torch? What is being heated and pushed up to create the flame thrower? You have to heat up massive amounts of air for example to carry the heat up? So now it’s a slowed down controlled nuclear explosion creating tons of mass out of thin air to make a magical nuclear fizzle?

a reply to: toms54

And the result would still be a bottom implosion. Not a top down collapse as seen in the towers. Why do the towers’ collapse look different than WTC 7’s collapse?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: toms54

Again, there is a threshold on the minimum required nuclear grade material needed to create the nuclear reaction that fuels a nuclear bomb. The nuclear reaction is triggered by using conventional explosives to slam the nuclear material together to yield the nuclear explosion. Not enough weapons grade radioactive material, you only got a dirty conventional bomb.

So you're saying all those reports about the suitcase bomb are lies and there's no such thing?

And....

Still no audio, video, seismic evidence of detentions powerful enough to cut steel.

And again...
Is it false to state the guy in the video was implying the bomb left enough radiation behind to cause 1,000,000 tons of rubble to be smoldering hot for up to 3 months? How does a micro nuke do that? The best parallel would be fukushima. If something radioactive was keeping 1,000,000 tons smolder for three months, you need a nuclear reactor’s amount of nuclear fuel. If the smoldering was caused by the heat of radioactive decay, the resultant radiation would be killing people working the pile in hours, not years. The radiation would be easily detected.

The guy contradicted and discredited himself in the first 11 minutes of the first video.

The video described some complex uranium/beryllium fission/fusion bomb that, I will be honest, I have never heard of before and I don't understand completely. I also don't believe the event was caused by a suitcase bomb. My point is that there has been a lot of development in nuclear bomb tech over the past 70 years. You can't necessarily expect the device to give off a blinding flash and pressure wave explosion like they did 50 years ago.

For all we know, the military could have been testing mini bombs in conflicts around the world for decades. They would be able to do this because, like you, people would not believe they are even nukes.

a reply to: toms54

This?

en.m.wikipedia.org...

A suitcase nuclear device (also suitcase bomb, backpack nuke, mini-nuke and pocket nuke) is a hypothetical tactical nuclear weapon that is portable enough that it could use a suitcase as its delivery method.

Both the United States and the Soviet Union developed nuclear weapons small enough to be portable in specially-designed backpacks during the 1950s and 1960s.[1][2]

The maximum yield of the W54 warhead used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (pictured) was 1kt (1000 tonnes of TNT). This is actually larger and heavier than the US W48 nuclear shell at 155mm (6.1 inches) in diameter and 846mm (33.3 inches) long and weighing 53.5Kg (118lb) which represents the smallest complete, self-contained physics package be fielded and had a yield of 72 tonnes of TNT. Nuclear weapons designer Ted Taylor has alleged that a 105mm (4.1 inch) diameter shell with a mass of 19Kg is theoretically possible.[3] Conversely, reduction beyond the size of the W54 meant that linear implosion designs must be employed and neutron reflectors dispensed with ('bare core') so the mass of fissile material increases dramatically while explosive yields are reduced dramatically. Taylor's figures represent the minimum size and mass to sustain a Prompt Criticality but the duration without tamper or neutron reflection would be short.

Then you still would need the magical equipment to make it a fizzle nuke bomb.

a reply to: toms54

And you also have the contradiction a mini nuke could release the equivalent energy of a fukushima reactor to keep 1,000,000 tons of rubble smoldering for 3 months? That is like saying a person invented a way so only one gallon of gas is needed to get a 737 in the air. One gallon of gas does not contain enough energy to lift 200,000 lbs plus jet into the air. Some things are impossible.

a reply to: neutronflux

Hypothetical, eh? So you are saying they do not exist. They are classified! Do you really expect to find details on line? Maybe in 1980, not today. That's also why I don't buy this fizzle fission fusion bomb. I don't believe there was any fusion going on. He's going into the classified realm here. He's not going to tell you or the world how it was constructed.

I already said I didn't believe 9/11 was done by a suitcase bomb. On top of that I don't claim to have all the answers. If I did, why would I tell you and go to prison? As far as fizzle goes, he explained it. If you don't understand it, watch the video again. Why ask me? I'm not the expert? Neither are you.

a reply to: toms54

No, the smallest micro nuke would still make a nuclear explosion that would have been noticeable and distinct in the audio and video from the WTC. With resultant shockwaves. Producing radiation that would have caused radiation poisoning and deaths within hours of detention. Claiming a nuclear explosion without the resultant radiation is like saying you have electricity without the flow of electrons.

a reply to: toms54

This is still fantasy, but this would be more like a nuclear blowtorch. A reactor that draws in air, heats the air to act like a blow torch. But you would need a reactor, and the fuel would have to remain in a matrix that keep the nuclear fuel in place when it was heated to over a thousand degrees as in to maintain the air flow path. The resultant radiation would be horrific.

a reply to: toms54

A nuclear bomb just uses the heat and energy that are byproducts of nuclear reactions. No nuclear reactions, no release of energy.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

...and you are certainly welcome to that thought process.

Let me know when you have evidence to support it. It's been closer to twenty years, than ten, and still the same tired "evidence" put forth. When was the last truly new evidence brought forth, of anything other than the collision of two planes into two buildings, and the resulting fires, coupled with the damage, bringing them down? I certainly can't recall any.

Does the 911 fiasco have unanswered questions? Hell, yes, it does. But not those questions.

My humble opinion, of course, you are certainly welcome to your own. If it turns out that you and all these others are right, I'll thank you for it.

a reply to: samkent


You are way behind the power curve Sam. You are not aware, it seems, that research of the "secret" type has been going on full steam since Fat Boy was dropped in 1944. Among others, the trend has been miniaturization and cleaner.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Salander

WE HAVE BEEN OVER THIS AD NASEUM, GRUBER ……..


AGAIN - the smallest nuclear weapon fielded was the WK 54 for the "DAVY CROCKETT" recoiless launcher

It had a nominal yield of some 10 to 20 tons (.01 - .02 kilotons)

The lethal radiation radius is some 350 - 400 meters ( 500 rems) Much of southern Manhattan would have been
irradiated and thousands, if not tens of thousands of radiation casualties been recorded

That's the smallest bomb that's been declassified. We've been hearing about tiny bombs that fit into a suitcase for decades now.

I liked your nuclear effects calculator. It doesn't take into account modern bombs that have a shaped charge. Also, the video said the blast cone radius was further modified by directing the "fizzle" up through the elevator shafts creating a sort of nuclear flamethrower.

Jim Gartenberg, working in one of the towers when it happened, described to his wife in a phone conversation that explosions were coming up through the elevator shafts. That is consistent with what you say.

Of course the mainstream media would never discuss that.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: samkent


You are way behind the power curve Sam. You are not aware, it seems, that research of the "secret" type has been going on full steam since Fat Boy was dropped in 1944. Among others, the trend has been miniaturization and cleaner.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

research of the secret kind,





That has a web page on a site with numerous written documents about conspiracy theories.




perfect joke to send off home

a reply to: Salander

Can you provide the actual quote? Not like you ever post anything out of context?

And why is there no audio of charges with the power to cut steel detonating?

And how does a nuclear “fizzle” make separate explosions away from the actual source or concentration of weapons grade nuclear material?

And why would an event in the base of the tower in an elevator shaft make a top down collapse? Without blowing out windows or material out openings on the way up? Was there a mini nuke for each elevator shaft?

For the nuke fantasy, people should have gotten radiation poisoning or died in mass within hours of the buildings’ collapse.

Nukes create more questions than answers.

a reply to: Salander

And would you explain your theory of mini nukes had enough radioactive material left over to keep 1,000,000 tons of rubble smoldering for 3 months? Something that would require fukushima levels of radiation make happen?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: samkent


You are way behind the power curve Sam. You are not aware, it seems, that research of the "secret" type has been going on full steam since Fat Boy was dropped in 1944. Among others, the trend has been miniaturization and cleaner.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Thanks for that link, it was very interesting to me and very much on topic. I'm still digesting it but already must retract what I said against fission.
W48 - Wikipedia

SADM - Special Atomic Demolition Munition

However, there are also modern "mini-nukes" made of Plutonium-239, rather than of Uranium-235, and due to a much lower critical mass of Plutonium, their size could be significantly decreased - some latest Plutonium-based "mini-nukes" could indeed fit into an attaché-case.

Nuclear demolition is a thing:

Nuclear demolition of skyscrapers was patented by "Controlled Demolition Inc." (alternative site) - the most renowned demolition company that deals with controlled demolition of buildings, and especially with controlled demolition of skyscrapers. The same company was a primary designer of nuclear demolition projects of the World Trade Center in New York and of the Sears Tower in Chicago.

That W48 technology is old stuff:

It was manufactured starting in 1963, and all units were retired in 1992.

invented 50 years ago. Who knows what they have now?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: toms54

No, the smallest micro nuke would still make a nuclear explosion that would have been noticeable and distinct in the audio and video from the WTC. With resultant shockwaves. Producing radiation that would have caused radiation poisoning and deaths within hours of detention. Claiming a nuclear explosion without the resultant radiation is like saying you have electricity without the flow of electrons.

That is what I read a few years back. Micro nukes were built into the WTC when it was constructed. Salander 's link goes into more detail.

However, in accordance with the US laws governing construction of skyscrapers buildings designers had to submit some satisfactorily demolition project before their construction project could be approved by the Department of Buildings. No one could be allowed to build a skyscraper that can't be demolished in the future. This is the main point of the skyscrapers' in-built nuclear demolition features.

Anyhow, "Controlled Demolition Inc." began to study possibilities of demolishing modern skyscrapers by underground nuclear explosions at the end of 60s, at request of the then New York Sate Governor Nelson Rockefeller - when it became necessary to get a legal approval from the New York Department of Buildings for the WTC Twin Towers construction. After some research, a final solution was found and approved by the Department of Buildings and "Controlled Demolition Inc." got its nuclear demolition know-how patented.

First of all, such a modern nuclear demolition has nothing to do with the former atomic demolition using SADM or MADM as described above. It is an entirely new concept. During modern nuclear demolition process, a demolition charge does not produce any atmospheric nuclear explosion - with its trade-mark atomic mushroom cloud, a thermal radiation and an air-blast wave. It explodes quite deep underground - much in the same sense as any nuclear charge explodes during a typical nuclear test. So, it does produce, neither any air-blast wave nor any thermal radiation nor any penetrating radiation nor any electro-magnetic pulse It could cause only relatively minor harm to surroundings by an ensuing radioactive contamination, which, nonetheless, considered being a negligible factor by designers of such demolition schemes.

I could go on but you should just look at the article. Here are a couple more links:
The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre
WTC nuclear demolition – damage inflicted to “bathtub” and to PATH.