4th Generation MicroNukes Used on WTC1,2 and 7

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
All the evidence has been proved pretty well in this thread, and the other one. I will not devote my energy to anyone who in IMHO is not willing to listen. Sorry.

The case we have is what you call circumstantial evidence, but the thing is, when all other possibilities for an explanation, in this case for the towers collapse, and 9/11 in general, are exhausted/dont make sense, then the one remaining is the most probable until you find something better!

SS,

I would not call the evidence "circumstantial" at all. If we take my list above as a starting-point, all of that evidence is solid, observed and documented fact. There's nothing circumstantial about any of it. About half of those points can be confirmed simply by watching a 15-second video of the event.

What's going on here, as you and Bsbray have made clear before to TB, is that we have an irrefutable set of occurrences that all must be accounted for.

No weapon or mix of weapons in the public domain can do that.

Well the evidence is not the part that has to be changed.

I feel a rant coming on:

This is the amazing part of all these discussions for me--frankly, the brainwashing that leads normally functioning human beings (for the most part) to dispute or dismiss simple fact. It is a product of conditioning and poor education.

Logic and critical thinking are dead; we live in a world of spin--Karl Rove's universe.

I say over and over again: look at that grey flower-bloom explosion and that is virtually all you need to know about how the towers fell.

Incomprehensible to me that most people do not understand the implications of that image, in terms of energies released.

Now, what caused those energies and fits the facts doesn't seem to exist. But it does not mean it doesn't.

/end rant.





[edit on 14-5-2007 by gottago]

So would you mind listing these irrefutable facts, which apparently 'prove' the case? A nice clean list of the different aspects which still support the nuke theory is what I'm looking for.

Ignorantisbliss, whats your opinion on hwo the towers came down? If you believe they were demolished, please state how you believe this was done. Thanks.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Are you telling me that a tiny-yield pure fusion device won't destroy steel just a few feet away? If it were designed only to destroy what was immediately around it and then quickly dissipate with distance -- this is not possible? The idea is that you only have to take out the core in specific places to get the rest of the buildings to fall.

And are you saying that the energy won't quickly dissipate the further you are out from it?

I'm talking about a device that only destroys its immediate surroundings, not half of Manhattan like you keep suggesting HAS to happen. If you have NO LOWER LIMIT on how much material undergoes fusion, you could theoretically fuse only two atoms if need be. There is a huge gradient. What's the problem? Why does half of Manhattan HAVE to be destroyed, if steel columns in a relatively small radius are destroyed?

Good question. Seriously. Here's my answer, take it for what it's worth to you. If you're talking about just explosive force destroying the building, then yes, there are several ways to go about it.

Here's the part where I get that queasy NDA feeling and start erasing and retyping over and over- a bad sign. Ok. Let's say you have magic C4 that is the size of a coffee can and you can dial it up as big as you'd like, up to say, 500 tons TNT. That would vaporize some of the metal through heating, but it would tend to blow stuff out in a big ball that would have LOOKED like an explosion, with a big ejecta ball right in the center and a big white flash. It wouldn't have vaporized as much as I think you guys are hypothesizing happened. And you'd get some radiation but not as much, because you're going for blast and not neutrons burning metal.

That's the part that bothers me. I don't know how accurately that's being judged. How much actually WAS vaporized, because there's a big part of what I'm objecting to, if you get right down to it. It's a lot harder to just vaporize metal than I think you guys are imagining. Pouring a huge stream of nucleons or EM into metal and concrete to turn it into vapor takes a lot of energy, and while you could certainly do it in the small right around the bang, in order to vaporize half the metal in the structure or something leads you to massive secondary irradiation of Manhattan, and/or a PV=NRT vapor explosion. The iron and silicon gas coming off the structures as they vaporize has very little mass compared to the girder, but it's in the same energy stream. So it would reach spectacular temperatures in a millionth of a second, and temperature is pressure. The building would just detonate like a stick of dynamite from the overpressure.

If the "vaporized beams" thing weren't in the equation I could come up with other things that look a lot more like what I saw and are off the shelf.

What's the chance you'd go for a solution where the insides of the building in the vicinity of the strike were powdered (at least the concrete and drywall) and the steel was buckled/snapped but not vaporized? Then some of the smoke trails could be nothing more than powdered debris following the chunks away from the building. That one I got right now, and it doesn't take nukes.

But it gives me a much larger base of info from which to draw.

But how relevant is it to an assortment of pure fusion device possibilities?

Probably not as bad as you think. Practical knowledge, OJT and about 6 credit hours short of a masters in physics I'm slowly slogging through doesn't make me a designer, but it's better than staying at a Holiday Inn. I also hear a lot through the grape vine and we work on other projects from time to time that are tenuously related.

At any rate, I can at least meatball the differential in neutron energy uptake from meat/paper to metal for you.

Now, that is actually a decent observation. I'll look over the other achievable fusion reactions - but DT is the only one you can get in a Teller-Ulam device. The others take too much energy to initiate.

"Too much energy"? How do you know how they would be initiated or if they could be or not?

Oh, that energy is well-known. You have to have an exothermic fusion reaction, there's only a few, and the pressures and temperatures needed to initiate them are not classified.

Of course, it's a bit of a tail-chase - in order to set off H-B11 (no one's been able to) it would take a very much larger primary.

And you KNOW that no primaries exist that could set off other reactions? Are you assuming fission would be required? What if a totally novel method were discovered that greatly reduced the amount of energy required?

You have this nasty Coulomb barrier to overcome. That's where the problem is. It doesn't so much matter what form the primary's in, as you have to get enough energy into the holraum to reach a point where the Coulomb barrier is overcome and the reaction becomes self-sustaining. Then you have to provide enough time for the reaction to go to a reasonable level of completion, generally through a mix of several tricks. Even setting off D-T is tough, and it has the lowest barrier height of them all. That's inherent to properties in the atoms themselves, it's not the sort of thing you could make go away.

Even if you invoked really oddball solutions like muonic decoupling you still have emissions issues for vaporizing the building's innards.

You say "no one's been able to" -- that is EXACTLY that kind of stuff that our nuclear weapons projects would be researching and looking for, right? And THEY have the funding and the best brains, not public scholarship.

But we're looping back to the magic weapon here, and you're back to the same problems. It's sort of a Thevenin equivalent - I don't care how the bomb was made, what comes out are subatomic particles you expect from a fusion reaction, if that's what you're conjecturing, and how they were generated isn't that germane.

If you're looking to the fusion weapon for simple explosive force, then you could do it, but you don't get this massive "half the building vaporized in a nanosecond from neutrons/alphas/gamma" scenario.

If you're looking to the fusion weapon to produce sufficient particle flux to cause massive vaporization, you get extremely powerful secondary emissions, the vapor is spectacularly excited (glowing) and you get a massive overpressure explosion that should have leveled the area.

Again, the "just a big bang" scenario doesn't bother me, it's the vaporizing thing that can't be made to fit anyway I turn it. You might could do it but the other things you should see in that case just aren't there.

You are hypothesizing that the device design can make it emit something magical that doesn't fit physics.

Not that the device emits different things in the way you're thinking, but that the device is made such that there is far more control over the results, whether that means changing the materials, souping up or toning down certain kinds of radiation by whatever mechanisms they use to do that, or whatever the case may be, but NOT giving the output itself special properties.

Great, yes, I agree with you whole-heartedly here, that fits what I know and was taught.

Again, I think it's reasonable to leave the device design out and consider anything that it might have emitted

So there's no difference between a uranium fission bomb and a plutonium fission bomb? Those are different devices, should they have the exact same outputs?

Certainly they would have different outputs, pure fusion would tend to put out nothing but neutrons and alphas, whereas fission would also put out gammas and heavy atom chunks. But these would act like you would expect, which is what I was getting at. I'm all for looking at anything that might have been emitted as a possible actor in any of this, but it should act like you expect. I think we actually agree on this, we're just using different examples.


Let's consider alternatives.

You seem not to be hog-tied by the vaporization thing, except in the immediate area that Device X was putatively used. I can go along with that, because it removes a lot of constraints. I'm having a real tough time figuring how you vaporize most of the structure without radiation or major detonations.

You want to know why the poofy trails of whatever it is are following the ejecta. Makes sense too. If we speculate that the internal concrete and drywall are reduced to near powder immediately before the disassembly of the top of the building from the bottom, would that leave such trails? Would the flying stuff drag the powder along behind? We also see what some of the posters are calling a "pyroclastic flow", which I don't agree it is, but it sure looks like a big dust cloud of finely fragmented concrete coming from the top of the building, not the bottom. I think I can cover that too, if the guts are pretty much reduced to dust.

You seem not to buy into the pre-placed thermite/thermate/C4/whathaveyou on the basis that it couldn't be done on a practical basis. So whatever it is has to be quick and easy to put in place.

And whatever Device X is has to produce the observed muffled bangs, low level flash and slight-to-moderate debris ejection observed from the area of collapse.

Does that sum it up? Did I miss anything major?

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Here's the part where I get that queasy NDA feeling and start erasing and retyping over and over- a bad sign. Ok. Let's say you have magic C4 that is the size of a coffee can and you can dial it up as big as you'd like, up to say, 500 tons TNT. That would vaporize some of the metal through heating, but it would tend to blow stuff out in a big ball that would have LOOKED like an explosion, with a big ejecta ball right in the center and a big white flash.

Ok, let's ignore the flash for now, mainly because I don't know enough about the light created by nuclear reactions to form any intelligent response yet.

You say it would create a "big ball that would have LOOKED like an explosion".

Like this?:




The buildings were obviously moving even relative to themselves as they collapsed, so the "shape" of the destruction was a dynamic phenomena, yet you have glimpses of exactly what you describe as far as I can see. The size of the blast is obviously dependent upon the yield.

How much actually WAS vaporized, because there's a big part of what I'm objecting to

I don't really care HOW the device would deal the majority of its damage, as in what exact particles or etc., but I do notice what looks exactly like sublimating steel. Now maybe this was a byproduct and not the main means of destruction -- that's no problem for me.

Would it be more likely that the majority of the damage be dealt by the process of ablative shock you described earlier?

What's the chance you'd go for a solution where the insides of the building in the vicinity of the strike were powdered (at least the concrete and drywall) and the steel was buckled/snapped but not vaporized? Then some of the smoke trails could be nothing more than powdered debris following the chunks away from the building.

I originally thought it was all concrete dust too, but WTC1's spire denies that, because it was only steel at that point, and yet there are still photos of stuff continuing to roll thickly off of the columns without any sign of diminishing. The same characteristic is demonstrable of a lot of the debris falling outside of the building. It wasn't being totally vaporized, or losing any real visible mass (not that you would be able to see the sides that were losing it anyway), so you're right in that the energy to completely vaporize these things from so far wasn't there (by "so far" I mean perimeter columns out many feet from the core structure, and core structure many feet below the actual blast).

Oh, that energy is well-known. You have to have an exothermic fusion reaction, there's only a few, and the pressures and temperatures needed to initiate them are not classified.

You know how we assume a pure fusion device makes use of a mechanism to kick it off other than the conventional fission, so what I was asking was more along the lines of, how do we know such a new mechanism couldn't be applied to other materials besides, say, hydrogen? Or whatever the case may be.

You have this nasty Coulomb barrier to overcome. That's where the problem is. It doesn't so much matter what form the primary's in, as you have to get enough energy into the holraum to reach a point where the Coulomb barrier is overcome and the reaction becomes self-sustaining. Then you have to provide enough time for the reaction to go to a reasonable level of completion, generally through a mix of several tricks. Even setting off D-T is tough, and it has the lowest barrier height of them all. That's inherent to properties in the atoms themselves, it's not the sort of thing you could make go away.

That's fine, and I'm not saying it would be easier, but only entertaining the possibility that ways have been found.

If you're looking to the fusion weapon for simple explosive force, then you could do it, but you don't get this massive "half the building vaporized in a nanosecond from neutrons/alphas/gamma" scenario.

And that's fine, too, because I'm not looking for anything that would do that, because it didn't happen.

Again, the "just a big bang" scenario doesn't bother me, it's the vaporizing thing that can't be made to fit anyway I turn it.

Well then I'm learning something from you. Like I said, the observed columns weren't totally vaporized, but just pouring off thick "dust" from out of nowhere. If that wouldn't have been the actual mechanism aimed for, to actually fail parts of the core, but only an unavoidable byproduct or whatever, then that's completely fine with me.

I believe the towers were brought down, not because they "looked like a demolition" (imo they didn't at all), or etc., but because I very seriously doubt that they could ever fall the way they did without something besides PE/KE doing the work. So for me it's more like negation than positively proving anything in particular, and that's generally where I go.

If some mechanism were discovered that would satisfy me without bringing in any additional devices besides planes and fire, then I would settle for it. But as it stands, no one has even tried to explain how the buildings completely collapsed, and I can't imagine any way it could have happened, either. The NIST report stops right as the collapses start -- trying to bring you up to the moment of failure and no further, but I have problems even with that because of how symmetrically the buildings fell, and the fact that they appear to have failed first at the core, which completely contradicts their theory of sagging trusses pulling the outer columns inward to cause the initial failure. Thermite and C4 doesn't cut it for me, either, for a number of reasons that get into the finer details of what exactly went down during the collapses, and what remained afterwards. So this process of negation is what's driving me, not because I'm looking for neutron vaporization or anything along those lines (but I still do think I'm seeing sublimation in the spire and some falling debris).

I'm having a real tough time figuring how you vaporize most of the structure without radiation or major detonations.

Not even "most". I actually think very little mass was actually lost of the steel to the air, especially compared to how much was left over at GZ.

You seem not to buy into the pre-placed thermite/thermate/C4/whathaveyou on the basis that it couldn't be done on a practical basis. So whatever it is has to be quick and easy to put in place.

That's part of it, but but I think the means was also there for placing some thermite or some high explosives if they were needed for some specific job, or at least some additional pre-weakening of the structure. I just don't think it's reasonable or that it even fits with the evidence that the buildings were fully loaded up with conventional devices in parts of the building that were also being used by tenants.

And whatever Device X is has to produce the observed muffled bangs, low level flash and slight-to-moderate debris ejection observed from the area of collapse.

I don't know anything in particular that would cause them, but what explosions you can hear from footage seem low-frequency and come across more as deep rumbles. For whatever it's worth. And most of the debris actually ended up being tossed out of the footprints by the time both towers had collapsed, leaving relatively little in their footprints, and apparently a largely intact core structure around the lobby levels and below to some extent.

But yeah, that about sums it up I guess. If not then we'll figure it out later.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So would you mind listing these irrefutable facts, which apparently 'prove' the case? A nice clean list of the different aspects which still support the nuke theory is what I'm looking for.

IIB Welcome to the thread.

Go back a page or two and you'll find exactly what you're asking for.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam


That's the part that bothers me. I don't know how accurately that's being judged. How much actually WAS vaporized, because there's a big part of what I'm objecting to, if you get right down to it. It's a lot harder to just vaporize metal than I think you guys are imagining. Pouring a huge stream of nucleons or EM into metal and concrete to turn it into vapor takes a lot of energy, and while you could certainly do it in the small right around the bang, in order to vaporize half the metal in the structure or something leads you to massive secondary irradiation of Manhattan, and/or a PV=NRT vapor explosion. The iron and silicon gas coming off the structures as they vaporize has very little mass compared to the girder, but it's in the same energy stream. So it would reach spectacular temperatures in a millionth of a second, and temperature is pressure. The building would just detonate like a stick of dynamite from the overpressure.

If the "vaporized beams" thing weren't in the equation I could come up with other things that look a lot more like what I saw and are off the shelf.

What's the chance you'd go for a solution where the insides of the building in the vicinity of the strike were powdered (at least the concrete and drywall) and the steel was buckled/snapped but not vaporized? Then some of the smoke trails could be nothing more than powdered debris following the chunks away from the building. That one I got right now, and it doesn't take nukes.

Nearly all the concrete was micronized, and this obviously occurred not from friction but heat/radiation that instantaneously caused its trapped water molecules to turn to vapor, creating the dust cloud.

You have much less loss of steel, but still significant, as proven by the amounts of miconized steel and building contents in the 2+ inches of powder that fell in the immediate vicinity.

I really think you have to decouple the observed effects from a single 'device X' and consider that several--perhaps dozens--small devices were used to bring the towers down--with a relatively big one in the basement to take out the core, whose signature was the rumble and white smoke @10 secs before collapse.

Smaller device, less radiation spread and more control, no?

A mini-mini-fusion nuke controlled demo, how's that?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Oh, that energy is well-known. You have to have an exothermic fusion reaction, there's only a few, and the pressures and temperatures needed to initiate them are not classified.

You know how we assume a pure fusion device makes use of a mechanism to kick it off other than the conventional fission, so what I was asking was more along the lines of, how do we know such a new mechanism couldn't be applied to other materials besides, say, hydrogen? Or whatever the case may be.

Oh, that's easy. You look at the binding energy of the reactants and products. That's where the bang comes from. It shows up in mass defects. If you look at fusion reactions whose end products have more mass than the reactants, it's an endothermic reaction, and no bang.

You don't have to take Their® word for it, you can figure out the same fusion tables the hard way. If you have a surplus of mass to start with, the bang you get is equal to the energetic equivalent of the mass difference. It's really all coming from the binding energy in the nuclei. But it's in tables to save you trouble.

I'm having a real tough time figuring how you vaporize most of the structure without radiation or major detonations.

Not even "most". I actually think very little mass was actually lost of the steel to the air, especially compared to how much was left over at GZ.

Great, because that's my biggest burp on a lot of these theories. I think the total vaporization concept came from the death beam woman, but it's contaminated the nuke concept.

From the rest of the post it looks like we're at least at a reasonable level of agreement. I'm trying to get some non-classified material relating to what I want to conjecture, and conjecture's all it is, but so far it's thin. Otherwise I have to tell you a fairy tale. It would be better if I could find released documentation with some detail to it. Otherwise it's all content-free press releases for the most part. Which sort of makes sense because it's all wound up with a number of pretty interesting projects.

Does anyone know for sure where the helicopters went, or whose they were? You might have been able to do it from a helicopter although it would be tough. I'd have gone in and done it "by hand", thus my earlier question about mysterious firemen or EMTs.

Originally posted by gottago

Nearly all the concrete was micronized, and this obviously occurred not from friction but heat/radiation that instantaneously caused its trapped water molecules to turn to vapor, creating the dust cloud.

See, I don't know that it's so obvious. There's a really big building collapsing a long long way, and that involves a lot of really high-energy crushing action.

What you have to deal with is, what did it right in the area of the fracture line where the collapse started, to a degree that explains the dust cloud that happens right there. The one that happens when the building falls doesn't have to be for the same reason. But you have to explain the first one.

Tom, i'll ask you again, how do you explain the pulverization of nearly all the concrete, aswell as the entire contents of the buildings. These were 110 story OFFICE buildings, packed with equipment like desks, computers etc..yet it all just disappeared.

No amount of crushing makes things disappear like that.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Tom, i'll ask you again, how do you explain the pulverization of nearly all the concrete...these were 110 story OFFICE buildings

Ahem - "here's a really big building collapsing a long long way, and that involves a lot of really high-energy crushing action.

What you have to deal with is, what did it right in the area of the fracture line where the collapse started, to a degree that explains the dust cloud that happens right there. The one that happens when the building falls doesn't have to be for the same reason. But you have to explain the first one."

These were 110 story OFFICE buildings, packed with equipment like desks, computers etc..yet it all just disappeared.

No amount of crushing makes things disappear like that.

Most of it was inside the building, yes? And the building fell down, and inwards on it. So most of the contents were in/under the building, and as you guys point out, it's burning under there for months. So all the lower temp melting point material such as aluminum and cheap alloy melts, and the organic stuff made of wood or particle board burns. Thus it's not only a wonderful heat source, but a possible source for the molten metal.

I also don't know that "it ALL just disappeared" because I didn't see the cleanup. I doubt that it would be very photogenic to film piles of crunched up office equipment. But after a few months of slow combustion I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be obviously identifiable, either.

Thats a feeble answer and you know it. Im not going to ask you anymore questions/debate with you any further, because you've demonstrated to me that you are simply a troll looking for attention.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Thats a feeble answer and you know it. Im not going to ask you anymore questions/debate with you any further, because you've demonstrated to me that you are simply a troll looking for attention.

Oh, come now. In what way is it feeble? You had a 110 story building crunch down on a bunch of Ikea office furniture. Did you expect to see whole desks or something? Not only that, it was buried for weeks and BURNING.

And again, how do you know there was "nothing left"? Did you watch them digging out the bottom of the pile? Aren't you one of the proponents of "rivers of molten metal for 6 weeks"? Do you really think that intact office goods are going to be down there?

Let me guess - you're going to propose that there are mystic nuclear particles that vaporize office equipment selectively?

Face it, the only way NOT to appear like a troll to you would be to agree with you, you've already said you won't discuss anything with "someone you don't know". Meaning, as is pretty obvious, anyone who doesn't agree with your furni-tron radiation theory.

Go look at other photos of the rubble from collapsed high-rises. The crap in front of Murrah is an example. Rebar, concrete, dusty crap. I don't see desks in the heap. I don't see computers. I don't see baskets of flowers. What I see is construction materials in a big pile. And that was only 7 or 8 stories.

In the remaining offices where the building didn't collapse, yes. Not in the scrap pile in front.

Here's some photos of other building collapses, some with rubble piles. See all the furniture? No? Just piles of ground up junk? That's what I thought. And none of it 110 stories up.

Where are the desks?

Where are the beds at this hospital?

I don't see the office furniture in this building!

It must be a trend - anti furniture lasers! Desk beams!

Really, furniture comes to little pieces in the collapse of even a short building. 110 stories provides a lot of force to destroy contents, especially when it covers them and burns them for weeks.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam You had a 110 story building crunch down on a bunch of Ikea office furniture. Did you expect to see whole desks or something?

Dear Tom Bedlam:

No, Tom, but we did expect more than talcum powder-fine dust and chopped up outer perimeter columns. Because that’s about all that was left of the towers. Dropping things doesn’t turn anything into powder — unless it was powder to begin with. Ya’ll can test this yourselves next-time you’re in a structure or on top of a mountain 100 ft or so above the ground. Drop something — anything — and see what happens. When it impacts it will have reached near terminal velocity (maximum speed). I.e. it wouldn’t get any more damaged if you dropped it from a high-altitude airplane.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_WoodsWhen it impacts it will have reached near terminal velocity (maximum speed). I.e. it wouldn’t get any more damaged if you dropped it from a high-altitude airplane.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Of course, having several megatons of crap landing on top of it at terminal velocity helps a good bit.

There's plenty of non-powdered bits, also, as can be seen in any photo of the debris.

Go look at some of the photos of Murrah, particularly, the heap in front is a snow drift of powdered crap.

The 3-15 story building photos I posted don't show a lot of furniture either, when the building collapses on it. Little bits of twisted junk.

Uh....Tom? These guys don't want answers, they want sycophants. They want the anti-furniture lasers. Much sexier, much more fun. Occam's Razor just doesn't cut it here.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Of course, having several megatons of crap landing on top of it at terminal velocity helps a good bit.

Dear Tom Bedlam:

Interesting thought. That would leave the upper floors of the towers relatively intact on top of a (non-existent) pile of rubble — since nothing was able to ‘crush’ them. But of course they aren’t there either. Why, they disintegrated in mid air!

And, all the 9.5 million ft2 of 22 gauge steel floor pans (on top of which the concrete floors were poured) disappeared also — ENTIRELY. How exactly does steel ‘go away’ when dropped or hammered (no matter how hard?). Oddities and more oddities…

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Interesting thought. That would leave the upper floors of the towers relatively intact on top of a (non-existent) pile of rubble — since nothing was able to ‘crush’ them. But of course they aren’t there either. Why, they disintegrated in mid air!

And, all the 9.5 million ft2 of 22 gauge steel floor pans (on top of which the concrete floors were poured) disappeared also — ENTIRELY. How exactly does steel ‘go away’ when dropped or hammered (no matter how hard?). Oddities and more oddities…

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

So, you don't think buildings nearly 1,400 feet tall crumble when they collapse? I can't imagine you're serious. Please - go look at the rubble of other collapsed buildings and tell me what you see. Murrah's a good start and it can't be more than about 100 feet tall.

22 ga steel isn't that thick, either, I would imagine what wasn't melted in your lake of molten metal was crumpled into wads or torn to bits in the collapse. Again - do you think WTC was the only building with floor pans? Go, take some time, look at other building collapses, show me the pans.

And again - how do you know "entirely"? Sounds like an absolute to me.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uh....Tom? These guys don't want answers, they want sycophants. They want the anti-furniture lasers. Much sexier, much more fun. Occam's Razor just doesn't cut it here.

There's many a photo of a collapsed or demolished building. They all look alike - rubble, with some chunky bits.

So easy to look for on the net, too. Look just like the WTC.

Yeah, I know they want death beams and magic neutrons, not all of them but a contingent. The fun part is - is there an off-the-shelf way to cause what actually happened?

Maybe yes, maybe no. But it's a fun mental exercise.

I'd really like to find some good descriptive material accessible to all on my 2 bit conjecture, but it's a Sandia thing and they haven't really let it out yet. Still looking for background historical material that's of some use.

Dear Tom Bedlam:

Why would you expect the steel to melt? Come again. 2,800 deg Fahrenheit? Anywhere? Let alone across all 110 floors? How?

There were no traces of sheet metal anywhere, wadded or otherwise. If it’s not on any single one of the hundreds of 9-11 pictures then yes, that becomes an “absolute”.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods