4th Generation MicroNukes Used on WTC1,2 and 7

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Damocles
if there were small nuclear detonations, why werent the EMS and police radios knocked out by the EMP? or even digital watches, tv cameras and power for the rest of manhattan for that matter?

They might be filled with static for a moment but they would continue working after that unless the burst was strong enough to actually fry the physical components from where they were standing.

There isn't really any data on how much of an EMP a pure fusion device would give off, especially a small one, but I'm not aware of any reason a large EMP would have to be given off when you're working with a very small "critical mass" to begin with and anything in between that conducts electricity is going to induct electrons and basically "soak up" a lot of whatever EMP was given off.

But you were saying at one point, at least I think you did, that the EMP was sufficient to "melt" cars and start engine fires, right? It can't be energetic enough to cause gross metal deformation yet not enough to blow the front end parts of receivers. They're designed to be sensitive to very small inputs, down to microvolts, while a car ignition/starter motor/whatnot is chunky and robust, and designed to deal with much larger voltages and currents. I sure thought I saw you blaming engine fires on starter motor meltdowns at some point in another thread.

What causes the EMP is the Compton effect. Even in a pure fusion weapon, the neutron flux is going to produce a HUGE amount of gamma radiation when it interacts with matter, and that will produce a Compton EMP. It isn't related to fission per se. So yes, you're going to get a pretty big EMP. And no, the frame of the building isn't going to sop it up, or you wouldn't have to shield against EMP. Just any old pile of rebar in some concrete would do it.

why was it JUST the cars that started on fire and not all the people standing in the general area prior to the initiation of the collapses?

There were cars on fire before either tower fell, so there were a variety of reasons for the car fires in all likelihood, but if any were set on fire because of a nuclear reaction, the best I can think of would be neutrons being ejected with tremendous energy, going into a dense part of a car, being brought to a stop, and in the process causing major localized heating. This wouldn't happen through less dense, smaller objects, like paper, or even people.

Oh, no no no. Light elements, especially the hydrogen in water, have really good neutron cross-sections. In fact, you use boronated polyethylene for neutron shielding in subs. Your body is really good at sopping up neutron radiation. Let's do some numbers. This is really meat-balled, but it's not that far off. I'm not going to worry about calculating fluences and the like because your body surface area is not that different from the engine.

5 greys of slow neutrons in one fast dose is pretty much considered "instant death" due to neural death. You will just drop dead where you stand. Fast neutrons, which you'd be getting from unmoderated exposure to a fusion weapon, will kill you with maybe 1 grey. But let's say all the neutrons are slow due to passage through the concrete walls of the building, so we'll assign a 5 Gy dose to kill a bystander, because that works in your favor.

One grey is 1 Joule/kg of deposited energy. That's not a lot. 5 Gy is 5 J/kg. That's 5 Watt-seconds of energy per kg of mass. That ain't a lot, either. Let's be kind and say I mass about 100 kg. 5 Gy of neutrons would deposit 500 Watt-seconds of ionizing energy into my body, and that would kill me instantly. That's a hair dryer on low for one second. If the heat of a 100W light bulb was spread out over your entire body volume for 5 seconds, that's warm but not a lot of heat. However, when it's delivered as ionizing radiation, that's all it takes to drop you in your tracks.

Now, given a uniform neutron flux, what's your cross-section compared to that of iron or aluminum? Consulting my little black book, live meat has a slow neutron cross-section of .238 barns. Aluminum is nearly identical at 0.23 barns, and iron is right up there at 2.56 barns. So in a uniform slow neutron flux, an iron engine block will pick up about 11x the greys you will.

So, we'll go with iron blocks, because that is the best for your melted engine theory. A cast iron Chevy big block weights about 300kg. Now, in a flux where I'm going to pick up a 5 Gy dose, the big block will pick up about 55Gy. That's 55 J/kg, or a total energy of 16,500 W-seconds (or Joules) for the engine, and 5 J/kg for me, or a total energy of 500 W-seconds.

How much will 16,500 J heat that engine block? Well, iron has a specific heat of 450 J/(kg K). So a Joule will heat a kilogram of iron 1/450 degree K. You have 300 kg to heat. That's a heat rise of 0.12 degrees C.

I don't know about you, but that's pretty much it for the magic melting engine block theory.

I think it also puts paid to the theory that you can have melting engines in one place and live people a few feet away - the neutron flux isn't going to be that patchy, it just isn't. If you have enough to melt an engine, the pavement will be on fire. It doesn't take a lot of neutrons to just instantly kill people. Note that I'm not talking the dose to make you puke your guts up. With 0.75Gy of slow neutrons, you'll be puking and having violent diarrhea the first day, along with visible skin burns. Older people would die from it in a few days.


[edit on 10-5-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
But you were saying at one point, at least I think you did, that the EMP was sufficient to "melt" cars and start engine fires, right?

Well, first let me correct it to this: an EMP overloaded circuitry to start a fire, which is actually not that infrequent when you overload something enough.

I said that was about as good of a guess as I could give at the time, short of introducing arsonists, because nothing physically touched a lot of those cars.

Others have suggested that the neutrons did that, and I guess that would make more sense now.

Even in a pure fusion weapon, the neutron flux is going to produce a HUGE amount of gamma radiation when it interacts with matter

Give me a better relationship than "HUGE". You could be talking fission-scale for all I know.

5 greys of slow neutrons in one fast dose is pretty much considered "instant death" due to neural death.

Well figure up for me how many neutrons might be whizzing by from a tiny pure fusion device that's been detonated within a dense core structure of a skyscraper some 1000 feet over your head.

If you have no critical mass, then I would imagine you could make a bomb pretty damned small, no?

Critical mass is not a problem with pure fusion bombs, hypothetically speaking. The only problem is creating high enough temperatures and pressure to get the fusion reaction going.. which is "impossible" given technology in the public domain.. You need a primary stage, which does use the fission reaction, in order to create the requirements for a fusion reaction in the secondary. (excuse me if i got primary/secondary mixed up, im a lil wired/tired right now)

However, if one were to discover a way to initate the secondary without the primary, ie Z-pinch effect for example, then you could create pure fusion bombs, which range in yields from miniscule, to absolutely armageddon sized proportions.

Would it be possible to make these tiny pure fusion bombs? I can not prove their existence too you, but, as you will know, military technology is at least 30 years ahead of what we have now.. to think they haven't probed this avenue would be nieve, as the applications of small, pure fusion bombs would be immense.

Who could possibly possess such technology? Israel is my prime suspect, more specifically, the Dimona facility. Israel is at the forefront of alot of technological stuff, and everyone knows that have an undeclared arsenal of over 200+ nuclear weapons...would it be to much of a stretch to suggest they have developed the technology (probably in a joint effort with the US) to make small, pure fusion bombs a reality?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
But you were saying at one point, at least I think you did, that the EMP was sufficient to "melt" cars and start engine fires, right?

Well, first let me correct it to this: an EMP overloaded circuitry to start a fire, which is actually not that infrequent when you overload something enough.

I said that was about as good of a guess as I could give at the time, short of introducing arsonists, because nothing physically touched a lot of those cars.

Others have suggested that the neutrons did that, and I guess that would make more sense now.

Ok, some of the statements I'm reading on various threads are starting to sort of merge. I'm guessing I read you saying that, and then maybe in the same thread someone posted Twietmeyer's melted car theory.

But again, if you have sufficient EMP to overload circuitry to the point that it started an engine fire, then you have enough to wipe out radios and the power grid, which was my point.

And the neutron flux really can't be used to address melting engines as a way to start fires. If you had that much neutron flux, you just can't avoid the other effects.

Even in a pure fusion weapon, the neutron flux is going to produce a HUGE amount of gamma radiation when it interacts with matter

Give me a better relationship than "HUGE". You could be talking fission-scale for all I know.

There's a lot of factors. We could meatball it though. It might not be accurate but it would probably be within an order of magnitude. It would be a lot of work to get close, there are computer models that would give you a close answer but I don't have access to those anymore. My recollection is that half the energy in the neutrons will end up as gamma or x-rays. That's a LOT.

There's the issue with fusion weapons - their energy is carried off in neutrons and alphas. The alphas cause damage but not like the neutrons, because neutrons dump their energy in so many crappy ways.

If you're really interested, we can set up some ground rules for assumptions and trudge through it the hard way.

5 greys of slow neutrons in one fast dose is pretty much considered "instant death" due to neural death.

Well figure up for me how many neutrons might be whizzing by from a tiny pure fusion device that's been detonated within a dense core structure of a skyscraper some 1000 feet over your head.

If you have no critical mass, then I would imagine you could make a bomb pretty damned small, no?

But there's the problem, isn't it? If you're saying that there was enough neutron flux to melt engines blocks away, then there was enough to kill people all over Manhattan and the surrounding boroughs. That's the implication of the engine block argument. It takes so little neutron flux to kill a person vs melting an engine. And then too, you have a car here, melted, and one next to it, not. That's not the way it works. It's too spotty. You'd have to have hell's own flux in one spot and three feet away, very little - you notice the paint's not burned off, or even changed in color for example. Also, the entire car wasn't melted. Think about that one. The car is made of steel. A flux that can melt a solid block inside a car but not melt the body, which is made out of about the same material? A flux SO spotty, SO concentrated, that only the block melts (how did it hit - through the grille?) but not only does the rest of the car not melt, but the gasoline doesn't explode. It doesn't take nearly the energy to heat gasoline to the point of detonation as it does to melt a freaking engine block. But in all your photos of partially burnt cars the fire starts at the engine, right? Surely you can't believe in a magic neutron theory that ALWAYS targets engines with its spottiness? Never fuel tanks? Never people? Did you see flaming pyres of people-carbon here and there around the building? The differential between the neutron absorption rates of paper, fuel, people, and iron is not so much that you can melt iron and not burn paper. Much less between the levels required to put you in the hospital and melting an engine block. That's what I was saying. The levels of neutron flux that would put you in the hospital for a month would not warm an engine block to the point you could measure it, much less would it melt it.

Not to mention that the gamma ray re-radiation from enough neutrons to melt an engine would kill people all around, yet you know there were survivors near by and in the building. For that matter, there were iron parts of the building that weren't melted to slag or "sublimated", there's a lot of problems with that too I haven't gotten into.

It's a scale issue. Anything that can directly melt a chunk of iron that far away from the building would also kill all the people in the area. You don't have to know the exact flux rate, one effect implies the other.



[edit on 11-5-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

As much as you make valid points Tom, i really see no other plausible explanation for the towers "collapses". The micronukes theory is the only one that fits all the evidence..its just the fact that there is no public information about these supposed weapons that makes things easier to deny.

Cutter charges alone is not practical. Tonnes would be needed to demolish both towers. Do they even make cutter charges large enough to sever the core columns? Would there have been direct access to all the steel columns, i mean the actual steel itself.

Thermite/Thermate is not plausible IMO. Again, alot would be needed, but there is no gurantees that it would successfully sever all the columns at the correct times. Aswell as the fact that we there were no signs of molten steel on the core columns that remained standing for 5-10 seconds after each collapse (yet, there was molten steel in the basement).


The deciding factor for me is the video evidence. The towers, as one firefighter said, "literally collapsed to dust".

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Who could possibly possess such technology? Israel is my prime suspect, more specifically, the Dimona facility. Israel is at the forefront of alot of technological stuff, and everyone knows that have an undeclared arsenal of over 200+ nuclear weapons...would it be to much of a stretch to suggest they have developed the technology (probably in a joint effort with the US) to make small, pure fusion bombs a reality?

possibly, Dimona seems a likely suspect. Have you heard of red mercury based fusion triggers? That is another possibility said to be developed by the Russians.

Its possible Israel or others bought these materials indirectly from Russia through other countries or even developed their own (whos to say Mossad didn't steal such tech from the Russians by spying). There is also a rumour that red mercury and/or nuclear devices had passed/were being passed through Iraq and was one of the motives behind the hunt for WMD. No wonder they never found it.

While there isn't much in the way of info on how such a weapon is designed, you don't really need to know it for the purposes of this sort of analysis.

D-T fusion produces 14.1meV neutrons, and 3.5meV alphas. Period. It doesn't matter how the fusion was done. With that in mind, you can't say that the neutrons melted an engine here and didn't kill the person there, because of the issues I've pointed out. So you can't really use neutrons as a mechanism to explain the car fires.

It also really knocks chunks out of the sublimation theory. It takes WAY more to vaporize an iron beam than to just melt it. (I'll leave alone the fact that such temperatures would also have the iron vapor GLOWING...) And scale issues again...that much neutron flux would have melted nearby buildings, and killed people as far as the eye could see. You can't get around it.

Nor around the gamma/x-ray issue. Nor the EMP issue. Or lack of both.

There are ways that it could have been done, though, that don't require nukes, or shaped charges, or thermite. I just don't think that was what happened.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
My recollection is that half the energy in the neutrons will end up as gamma or x-rays. That's a LOT.

And you don't think there are ways around this or ways to tweak how much of the energy goes to different kinds of radiation, how much goes to heat, etc.?

Have you seen that page of declassified info from the DoE? It doesn't have a lot of specific information, but it has a lot of little pieces of info about how they've been tweaking the outputs of nuclear devices in various ways for decades.

www.fas.org...

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)

All that's some heavy stuff, isn't it? They were even looking into ways to direct different types of output to different directions, sending visible light one way, neutrons another, and they talk about minimizing neutron radiation, the successful development of "minimum radiation devices", etc. This is stuff they've been interested in for decades, or at least were interested in decades ago.

Can you tell me how they might have achieved minimum residual radiation, or how they could possibly direct different products of a nuclear reaction to different directions? This is with fission devices, mind you. Because the guys working on this stuff some decades ago apparently could. This is the problem with trying to debate what today's nuclear devices can and can't do. It isn't a public-domain subject.

But there's the problem, isn't it? If you're saying that there was enough neutron flux to melt engines blocks away

You might as well drop that, because all I have towards the cars are a vague idea and a best guess. You won't have any trouble getting me to admit I don't know exactly what happened to those things. I can just tell you a few things that didn't happen to them.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
And you don't think there are ways around this or ways to tweak how much of the energy goes to different kinds of radiation, how much goes to heat, etc.?

Well, no. You get neutrons and alphas out of a D-T fusion reaction. When they whack into material, some passes through, some undergo interactions with the material that produces high-energy photons. Such as gamma and x-rays. If you're emitting high energy neutrons, people are dying and the gamma and x-rays are a-flyin'.

Have you seen that page of declassified info from the DoE? It doesn't have a lot of specific information, but it has a lot of little pieces of info about how they've been tweaking the outputs of nuclear devices in various ways for decades.

Yep, I worked for DOE in a related field for a little more than a year before I had enough and started an engineering business.

Can you tell me how they might have achieved minimum residual radiation, or how they could possibly direct different products of a nuclear reaction to different directions? This is with fission devices, mind you. Because the guys working on this stuff some decades ago apparently could. This is the problem with trying to debate what today's nuclear devices can and can't do. It isn't a public-domain subject.

I wouldn't be able to comment on the list.

But there's the problem, isn't it? If you're saying that there was enough neutron flux to melt engines blocks away

You might as well drop that, because all I have towards the cars are a vague idea and a best guess. You won't have any trouble getting me to admit I don't know exactly what happened to those things. I can just tell you a few things that didn't happen to them.

But it's crucial, central to your theory, no?

If the beams weren't "sublimated by neutrons", if the cars weren't "melted by a nuke wave" then the cause is up for grabs, isn't it? The things you theorize were happening in the building have inescapable side effects that weren't present.

It can't be thermal flash "sublimating the beams", because none was seen. It can't be sublimation by neutron excitation, because that much would slag half of Manhattan. It can't be neutrons melting the cars because it would have killed all the bystanders. There wasn't an EMP big enough to do any discernable damage.

It was not a nuke.

None of us know the exact effects of a spent weapon for which we don't have the specifications or even chemical components.

A link between the pictoral 'evidence' and this theory cannot be proved or disproved. Because of the above, evidence is non-existant.

However, since I do beleive the nuke theory for other reasons, common sense tells me a link is likely.

Hopefully, Tom, you will find all you need in this thread.

Thanks.

If thermate and conventional explosives would do the job, why use micro nukes?
If thermate can do this, why use nukes?

Originally posted by RedPill
If thermate and conventional explosives would do the job, why use micro nukes?
If thermate can do this, why use nukes?

Basically thermate melts things its not really an explosive, thermate doesn't separate the concrete on a molecular level in an explosive like event and neither would conventional explosives, but nukes can and do. Also that beam in your picture may of been cut by the iron worker standing in the background (which is cropped in that version). Check out the thread SteveR just posted a link to.




[edit on 11-5-2007 by Insolubrious]

Who says thermate or conventional explosives would be capable? I have yet to hear it come from a demolition experts mouth. So far, ive only heard it come from Alex "slave" Jones and the Prof Jones, one who is an intentional disinfo agent, and the other has just been sucked in (i'll let you figure out which is which)

Also, that picture..you mite want to review this video clip showing Iron workers on the WTC pile cutting through the core columns using what looks like a plasma torch on 2 occasions; www.youtube.com...

and this one, of iron workers who worked on the WTC pile
www.youtube.com...

Listen to the words of IRON WORKERS themselves telling you how out of the ordinary the steel looked after 9/11.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Also that beam in your picture may of been cut by the iron worker standing in the background (which is cropped in that version). Check out the thread SteveR just posted a link to.

Cutting steel with a torch works by heating the metal then blasting it with a stream of oxygen that actually combusts the steel. Almost all of the molten steel is blown away and none is left on the side you are cutting from, it all gets blown through to the other side. See the molten steel running down the front of that beam? The torch would have had to been inside the beam to do that. Additionally using a torch to cut does not produce rivers of molten steel. It produces showers of molten steel sparks. Anyone with experience with an oxy tourch can verify this.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
But it's crucial, central to your theory, no?

No.

If the beams weren't "sublimated by neutrons"

Never backed off from this one, really, unless you have an explanation for this kind of stuff:

It can't be thermal flash "sublimating the beams", because none was seen.

I won't fall under the assumption that one is absolutely necessary. I wouldn't know. I really doubt that you would, either. It's that simple for me, I'm afraid.

It can't be sublimation by neutron excitation, because that much would slag half of Manhattan

Again, size. Small range. No lower limit on "critical mass", 60+ years and trillions of dollars of research. You can tell me a detonation meant only to take out core columns would also necessarily melt half of Manhattan if you want, but I won't take you seriously.

Originally posted by bsbray11

If the beams weren't "sublimated by neutrons"

Never backed off from this one, really, unless you have an explanation for this kind of stuff:

You really should, because you have no explanation for the lack of dead people and melted surroundings. The amount of neutron flux required to simply MELT the beams would have killed people for miles, even if you don't count in the gamma and x-ray flux.

The amount needed to vaporize a steel beam would have effects on the nearby buildings even YOU can't ignore. How can you have sufficient neutron flux to turn a beam directly to vapor, without at least damaging surrounding buildings? You know it can't be true, even if you won't admit it.

It can't be thermal flash "sublimating the beams", because none was seen.

Yet no matter if you don't believe I can do simple dose and energy deposition calculations (though I notice you don't call it into question, you just sidestep), SOMETHING has to deposit enough energy into the beam to "sublimate" it. Unless you're going to skip out of reality and start embracing magic energy that only heats beams, any amount that does that will also have effects on nearby objects too, eh? And it has to be SOME sort of energy, what are you proposing? Anything you can think of is going to have noticeable effects at that level.

And what I haven't mentioned is that "sublimation" in the case of metal and concrete involves pumping so much energy into the rubble so fast that the surface layers reach a high enough temperature to convert the material to gas before the underlying substrate can conduct the heat away and just melt.

That sort of temperature would cause the vapor and the metal surface to glow a bright yellow white. Do you see any glow? I don't.

It can't be sublimation by neutron excitation, because that much would slag half of Manhattan

Again, size. Small range. No lower limit on "critical mass", 60+ years and trillions of dollars of research. You can tell me a detonation meant only to take out core columns would also necessarily melt half of Manhattan if you want, but I won't take you seriously.

I'm not questioning detonation, although there are much better ways to do it than a nuke, at that damage level, and with far fewer lingering pesky effects like the ones I've been mentioning.

If you want to posit the nuke as simply a source of an explosion to blow the building apart, then that's a different argument.

My point is that if you also invoke neutrons, alpha particles or what not in order to meet your secondary goals of explaining the burned cars and "sublimation" you think you're seeing, then you are leaving the argument safety zone of "you don't know any of the neat weapons they have" (you might be wrong on that one) and you're entering Physics Land, where the amounts of energy needed to do that can be at least approximated on the back of an envelope, and the mystery of the bomb type is moot.

A neutron is a neutron. Kinetic energy is kinetic energy. If you have enough neutron flux of sufficiently high energy to instantly vaporize concrete and steel, then you have all the other crap that goes with that. There aren't special secret neutrons. The neutrons don't magically stop at the edge of the building. They don't forbear from inducing radiation of gamma and x-rays as they decelerate in materials. That's why your table there didn't say a minimal radiation weapon emitted special secret neutrons, it emitted reduced amounts of neutrons.

If you have a bright enough (and long enough) thermal flash to vaporize concrete and steel you'd see it. It would have effects outside the building area.

If you have an EMP so large it can inductively vaporize the beams it doesn't magically stop at the edge of the building and not blow out radios in the building.

If you sublimate steel so fast that a big percentage of the steel beams are vaporized in seconds, the vapor, concrete rubble, and beams will be glowing, and at the delivery rate you'd have to have to do it in mid-air, the beams would be bright white and the vapor will probably be fluorescing all the way up to UV, if not x-rays. The sublimation temperature of iron is 2000K. Sublimation is a slow process. What would have to be happening is vaporization, a different thing, and it's going to take a surface temperature over 2750K. That is going to result in a blinding bright white glow.

Not only that, the sublimate or vapor doesn't just go away. Where are the tons of iron deposition all over the down wind objects?

edit: double negative in one sentence

[edit on 12-5-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by RedPill

Cutting steel with a torch works by heating the metal then blasting it with a stream of oxygen that actually combusts the steel. Almost all of the molten steel is blown away and none is left on the side you are cutting from, it all gets blown through to the other side. See the molten steel running down the front of that beam? The torch would have had to been inside the beam to do that. Additionally using a torch to cut does not produce rivers of molten steel. It produces showers of molten steel sparks. Anyone with experience with an oxy tourch can verify this.

for the most part i have no major disagreements with any of this, however id like to offer a couple 'alternatives' that could explain the picture without it being thermite thermate or anything else. (and with all the times ive explained in X number of threads why it likely isnt HE i wont even go there)

i agree totally about the nature of an OA torch, but, if youve ever cut really thick steel horizontally you know that until the flame busts through the material its gotta go somewhere so its not at all strange to see slag dripping down the side you are working on to a small degree.

now the large amount of slag seen on the outside of that column at the bottom of the angle has a plausable mundane possibility. i conferred with an industrial welder buddy of mine who actually builds large steel buildings for a living and his theory on that pic was that the cleanup crew guy cut it at that angle so as to fell it like a tree, once he had three sides cut he got it to lean away from the base (much like a tree falling) and he reached inside to finish the cut. now, its possible he just got people out of the way and let it drop, or he could have had it on a crane. people have asked why he'd bother with an angle cut if he had a crane but if you think about it from a safety stand piont it does make sense. by getting it to lean out and cutting it from what becomes the backside, he can control where it swings once the last cut is finished. had he cut just perfect horizontal lines, he had no way to control which way the bottom was going to go once his last cut was finished and he could have taken that beam to the head. if he leans it out,then he knows what direction its going and he's on the opposite side of where its going thus his own safety is increased.

im not going to claim that IS what happened as i wasnt the one to cut it, but if you really think about that it IS a plausable theory that doesnt involve super duper high tech super secret materials that no one has ever been able to demonstrate will cut horizontally through 2" steel nearly instantly thereby causing catastrophic global failure. it also is MUCH more plausable than it being cut by explosives. (if you dont understand that by now im done explaining it (by you i mean anyone not redpill in particular))

and im not trying to debunk anything in this post. we want the truth and to find the truth we have to be open minded and consider all possibilites and then by process of elimination narrow down said possibilities and compare them to the evidence at hand. so by comparing just this one picture we can see that we DO have guys with torches and we do NOT have any physical evidence of stuff that may or may not exist outside the lab.

just my .02, im going back to bed.

So, I guess no-one's willing to entertain all the dust as being nothing more than crushed concrete?

If you knocked out a chunk of the center of the building all at once, sort of like your nuke hypothesis but without the nuke, so that everything in there is knocked apart (steel structure) or powdered (concrete), you'd have the top coming loose like that, but with a big bolus of powdered concrete crap in the center ready to make big dust trails.

Toss in driving a few floors below off their supports so that a pancake could start.

Would that be something you could buy? Or does it HAVE to be nuclear to fit for you guys?

I'd pay real money to know why I get double posts sometimes. I mean, I often LOOK to see if it double posted, but the second one sometimes doesn't show up right away.

At any rate, sorry for the delayed double post.

[edit on 12-5-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
So, I guess no-one's willing to entertain all the dust as being nothing more than crushed concrete?

No, because the "crushed concrete" was ejected out of the impact zone the second the building started to collapse. There is simply no way that amount of pulverization occured with only 1-3 floors compressed together in less than 2 seconds. It is simply not possible.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
If you knocked out a chunk of the center of the building all at once, sort of like your nuke hypothesis but without the nuke, so that everything in there is knocked apart (steel structure) or powdered (concrete), you'd have the top coming loose like that, but with a big bolus of powdered concrete crap in the center ready to make big dust trails.

I dont really understand what your saying, but how would there be dust already formed in the middle of the building when the official story is the buildings failed at the impact zone due to fire. There should be no dust present below this zone, according to the official line.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Would that be something you could buy? Or does it HAVE to be nuclear to fit for you guys?

No one said it has to be a fusion bomb, but it is the ONLY theory that fits ALL the evidence. Thermite/Thermate sounds plausible, but it still doesn't explain alot of the evidence, such as;

-How the entire buildings were pulverized to dust, leaving only fragments, and steel beams
-How some cars spontaneously caught fire without being touched by debry
-Why the core of the building, seen standing for 10 seconds after the collapse, has no molten metal glowing/dripping down the columns
-How the molten steel in the basement stayed molten for 3 months

Some exotic weapon was used, i am 100% certain of that. And there is also evidence to show that the same weapon has been used on several other occasions, resulting in similar damage/evidence;

-Bali bombing
-London financial district bombing in 91 (or 93, cant remember)
-Oklahoma bombing

I don't believe the theory because its wild and crazy, i believe it because its the only one which fits all the evidence.

I am prepared to be proved wrong, as with anything i believe. But until someone can come up with a better explanation for the demolition of the towers, the nuke theory sticks.