Extremely powerful new clip by 911eyewitness

Deep.

Cutting charges, intact paper with powderized concrete & vaporized steel, Edna Cintron still alive in the impact hole, and cars destroyed by hot debris from a pyroclastic dust cloud.

It's all presented here in this new 4 minute clip...

watch here

This has to be the biggest piece of crap that I have heard yet. Let me see if I have this straight. The official explaination is supposed to be wrong because of the paper and debris found around the WTC survived the fire. Yet they want us to believe that a thermonuclear explosion in the basements of the towers is responsible for their collapse. One small problem with their theory. THE TOWERS COLLAPSED FROM THE TOP DOWN!!!! If the explosion was in the basement shouldn't the destruction be going the other way?

A thermonuclear device?

Now I'm not up-to-date on all the theories surrounding this, but everyone is giving evidence to the planned demolition, and this vid talks about a nuke? Did anyone stick Geiger counters in there? I presume you could still do it now, and even then you probably would not have to. Chernobyl was first picked up by people in Norway or around that area.

Now unless you have a radiation-proof nuke, no I don't think that's what brought those towers down . . . although those charred cars are highly suspicious.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
This has to be the biggest piece of crap that I have heard yet. Let me see if I have this straight. The official explaination is supposed to be wrong because of the paper and debris found around the WTC survived the fire. Yet they want us to believe that a thermonuclear explosion in the basements of the towers is responsible for their collapse. One small problem with their theory. THE TOWERS COLLAPSED FROM THE TOP DOWN!!!! If the explosion was in the basement shouldn't the destruction be going the other way?

The claim is that it was a combination of high tech explosives as well as thermite.

The thermonuclear device is what caused the massive blasts recorded going off in the basemen just BEFORE the collapse.

These devices yeild very little residual radioactivity.

Thermonuclear Device

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
A thermonuclear device?

The nuke stuff doesn't really have much going for it at the moment besides circumstantial things that everyone would be hard-pressed to explain otherwise. They would've been planted underground and shaped upwards into the cores of the buildings. It's not a really a prominent theory by any means, but official story supporters bring it up pretty often as a straw-man, to attack claims that individuals here have not made. It's too bad that not a whole lot is known publically about nukes and their advancements in the past 60 years since the Japan bombs.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Let me see if I have this straight. The official explaination is supposed to be wrong because of the paper and debris found around the WTC survived the fire.

No, you don't have it straight. First of all, I've never seen that argument, that the official story is wrong simply because all the paper didn't burn. But what Jack and the makers of this video are getting at, I assume, is that the paper survived while the concrete slabs were all pulverized into fine powder, which coated the streets of Manhattan like a fluffy gray snow.

I haven't watch the video yet so I can't tell you what exactly it's pointing out. Have you watched it?

[edit on 22-5-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
A thermonuclear device?

Now I'm not up-to-date on all the theories surrounding this, but everyone is giving evidence to the planned demolition, and this vid talks about a nuke? Did anyone stick Geiger counters in there? I presume you could still do it now, and even then you probably would not have to. Chernobyl was first picked up by people in Norway or around that area.

Now unless you have a radiation-proof nuke, no I don't think that's what brought those towers down . . . although those charred cars are highly suspicious.

Thermonuclear devices yeild very little residual radioactivity.

Thermonuclear Device

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
The thermonuclear device is what caused the massive blasts recorded going off in the basemen just BEFORE the collapse.

How come the cores were left standing momentarily after the collapse if the nukes were detonated in the basement? How come people survived in one of the cores?

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, you don't have it straight. First of all, I've never seen that argument, that the official story is wrong simply because all the paper didn't burn. But what Jack and the makers of this video are getting at, I assume, is that the paper survived while the concrete slabs were all pulverized into fine powder, which coated the streets of Manhattan like a fluffy gray snow.

I haven't watch the video yet so I can't tell you what exactly it's pointing out. Have you watched it?

[edit on 22-5-2006 by bsbray11]

Yes I watched it. Why else would I call it a piece of crap? How about you watching it and then responding? I am referring only to the video that this thread is about, not anything else.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
The thermonuclear device is what caused the massive blasts recorded going off in the basemen just BEFORE the collapse.

How come the cores were left standing momentarily after the collapse if the nukes were detonated in the basement? How come people survived in one of the cores?

What don't you get?

These thermonuclear devices are used during excavations for gods sake.

Why would you think it wouldn't leave the core of such a massive structure standing "momentarily"?

I'd say the fact that after that "moment" we can watch what's left of the steel in the core literally VAPORIZE is a testament to this.

st12.startlogic.com...

It means nothing that a single person happened to be in the exact right place to be protected enough to survive.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by Jack Tripper]

Originally posted by Jack Tripper

These thermonuclear devices are used during excavations for gods sake.
[edit on 22-5-2006 by Jack Tripper]

Since when have thermonuclear weapons been used for excavating? Facts please.

and why hasn't anyone reported any type of radiation in that area/ Why aren't the buildings and people around the area affected? Wouldn't NY be in a radiation crisis if any type of "nuclear" device was used?

Reality people.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper


Thermonuclear devices yeild very little residual radioactivity.

Thermonuclear Device

What does "very little" residual radioactivity actually mean. The link you gave did not help your statement very much. I would have to think that there would be some measurable amount of radioactivity left from such an explosion. Do you have evidence of such measurements. If all you are going to say is "well there isn't enough left to measure" then where is your PROOF!

Way too many holes in the tapes arguement. Even the in photos, the video that show Edna Cintron looking out of the WTC there seems to be flames still going on on floors above her. Where is the proof the fires were out then?

To be honest....I don't really subscribe to the mini-nuke theory.

Although I think it may be plausible....and this video clip does show that there was some evidence of it or something similar.

Radiation was found in the WTC rubble...

A pile of rubble from the crash was found to be radioactive, but EPA
official Bill Bellinger of the agency's Region III Environmental
Radiation Monitoring Office was unconcerned when contacted by Diane
D'Arrigo from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

thewebfairy.com...

They are saying it is from depleted uranium in the 747's but would there be that much?
Also the DU in commercial A/C theory is contraversial and not substantiated AFAIK....

Originally posted by ANOK
Radiation was found in the WTC rubble...

They are saying it is from depleted uranium in the 747's but would there be that much?
Also the DU in commercial A/C theory is contraversial and not substantiated AFAIK....

First the planes that hit were Boeing 767s not 747s. Yes both aircraft have Depleted Uranium weights in them. These are used as counterweights in some of the flight control systems as well as for maintaining center of gravity. There could be some minor radiation detected from them. Another source could be the ignition exciter boxes on the aircraft's engines. Other sources of radiation could be sensors and equipment used by the companies with offices in the towers. You can find small sources of radiation almost everywhere. Radium numbers on clocks and wristwatches are just an example. If a so called mini-nuke was detonated in the basements you would expect to find larger quantities of radiation than was detected.

Actualy weren't they 757's?

My bad...A typo, sorry obviously they weren't 747's...lol

But my point stands. Not all commercial jets have DU in them, does the 757?

Even so I don't think it would be enough to radiate the rubble, think about the amount of rubble compared to the amount of DU, I don't think the radiation would have been enough to register a reading?

[edit on 23/5/2006 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK
Actualy weren't they 757's?

My bad...A typo, sorry obviously they weren't 747's...lol

But my point stands. Not all commercial jets have DU in them, does the 757?
[edit on 23/5/2006 by ANOK]

The addition of DU weights isn't determined by the aircraft type, but how the aircraft is modified. Certain equipment requires counterbalance to maintain a specific center of gravity. The addition of extra seats, galleys or other modifications determine the presence and placement of these weights.

The ones that hit the WTC were 767's.

767's hit the WTC and a 757 hit the Pentagon. A 767 is substantially larger than a 757, to put it into laymans terms a 757 has only 4 seats in a row (with an aisle in the centre) and a 767 generally has 7 (with an aisle either side if the centre 3 seats.). Sorry it used to be your job! I guess you already know that

Originally posted by AgentSmith
767's hit the WTC and a 757 hit the Pentagon. A 767 is substantially larger than a 757, to put it into laymans terms a 757 has only 4 seats in a row (with an aisle in the centre) and a 767 generally has 7 (with an aisle either side if the centre 3 seats.). Sorry it used to be your job! I guess you already know that

Thanks for the confirmation on the 767's. The interior arrangements for any passenger plane are determined by the individual airline. It is the difference in these arrangements that determines the need for weights to keep the center of gravity as close to the ideal position as possible. With DU's high density it is often used as these weights. Keeping the center of gravity as close to ideal as possible allows for greater flexability in the aircraft's payload.

Actually Smith, most 757s are three, aisle, three. I flew back from LAX on one a few years ago and had two seatmates. 767s are 2,3,2 and 747s are 3.5,3 IIRC.