4th Generation MicroNukes Used on WTC1,2 and 7

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Tom, your on ignore after your last pathetic attempt to explain away the "collapses" due to structural failure. Its already been established that fire could NOT have caused the "collapses".

Hey, now YOU'RE not reading what I said. Too bad you couldn't handle the pressure - you ran away once by saying you wouldn't talk to "someone you didn't know" now you're letting the ignore feature do it for you. If you weren't the intellectual coward you apparently are, I'd simply have told you to read what I said, which you didn't:

"They disintegrated because the building lost structural integrity and collapsed. The why of that is the question. "

That, my non-listening friend, is the exact truth, whether the building lost its structural integrity to fire, explosives, or nuclear blast. Combined with me stating maybe 20 times in the last three pages that I was conjecturing that it had been done in some non-nuclear way, I can't see how you could possibly pull "fire" into the discussion, except possibly from your arse, because it's for damn sure I never mentioned it.

The truth, shrunkensimon, is that you know your belief that a mystic nuclear device somehow "turned metal to dust" would be easily dismissed by someone technical, and you can't handle it.

That's ok. Some people need to avoid looking at the details of the things they embrace as true. You are apparently one.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Facts are wonderful things and I guess you didn't understand that the whole Occam's Razor reference was meant to point out how unbelievably convoluted the 'theories' are getting. On the whole, they're just so far out there, it's unreal.

Someone says that nukes are the only possible answer and doesn't want to address that simple forces like gravity and steel strength being reduced by exposure to fire are enough to explain the observed pancaking post-crash, I guess that's his privilege. But watching Simon in action, it's clear that he doesn't want a discussion as evidenced by his 'discussion' with Tom Bedlam.

It's a shame, too.

Even if you want to hypothesize that it's explosives that did the trick, there may be far better ways to pull it off than planting hundreds of shaped charges to cut the support members, or certainly some mythical nuclear device. Certainly faster things that you could do with only a few people.

But this weird attribution of all sorts of nonsense effects "turning steel to dust!" I just don't understand. When you ask "and how is that done? What facet of a nuclear blast does this?" no one seems to have a lucid answer. But if you don't agree with them, they call you pathetic and run off, or start yammering that you should be silenced.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Someone says that nukes are the only possible answer and doesn't want to address that simple forces like gravity and steel strength being reduced by exposure to fire are enough to explain the observed pancaking post-crash, I guess that's his privilege. But watching Simon in action, it's clear that he doesn't want a discussion as evidenced by his 'discussion' with Tom Bedlam.

Its already been established that fire alone could not have caused the collapses. You only need look to WTC 7 to realise the obviousness of the truth.

Oi, here we go again. In any case, you want to buy into that, be my guest.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonI don't want a discussion with Tom, because he evidently has nothing to offer me.

If by 'nothing to offer you', you mean he disagrees with you and points out shortcomings, then yes, I guess he doesn't have anything to offer you.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonAll he has done is simply belitted everything i've said,

Deservedly so. You aren't posting facts, you're posting suppositions which you present as fact and then get all pissy when someone calls you on them.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonwhilst giving such pathetic answers to my questions.. why should i waste my energy on him when there are others in this thread who are more willing to discuss the theory.

His answers have been far and away more grounded and patient than anything I've seen from you. If there's anybody wasting good energy on maintaining civility, it's been him not you. You don't want a 'discussion' of theory; you want sycophantic adoration. You weren't getting it from Tom so you've killfiled him. Real model of 'discussion' going on there, Simon.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Also aren't these actually two different substances or versions of each other? Aren't there debates over whether it's thermite or thermate? I find either a better explanation than nukes.

Ok, pulling out my Wiley's, there are several types of thermite. The most common thermite is the 73% by weight powdered iron oxide and 27% by weight powdered aluminum.

Thermite is really tough to ignite. So in order to simplify the firechain, they did some diddling around with common thermite to see what could be done to reduce the ignition temperature. There are several, Therm-8, Therm-8-2 (thermate TH2) and Therm-64-C (thermate TH3). Wiley says TH2 has no sulfur, I don't have a spec for it.

Thermate was originally used for a part of the firechain in magnesium incendiaries, but pretty quickly TH3 became the standard for military incendiaries. Pretty much any military thermite you see is TH3 thermate.

There are other thermites besides Al/Fe, Teflon/magnesium thermite is used for some aircraft decoy flares.

Listen pal, you just jumped into this thread trying to claim that all that "dust" was merely drywall, so don't try and lecture me about not wanting a discussion when you came in here claiming such an absurd statement yourself!

You evidently have no intention either, just like Tom, of actually discussing this theory. Instead, you joined the thread in order to spout your own opinion when there are plenty of other threads for people with your level of intelligence, of lack of.

Go back to the front line moron.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Listen pal, you just jumped into this thread trying to claim that all that "dust" was merely drywall, so don't try and lecture me about not wanting a discussion when you came in here claiming such an absurd statement yourself!

You evidently have no intention either, just like Tom, of actually discussing this theory. Instead, you joined the thread in order to spout your own opinion when there are plenty of other threads for people with your level of intelligence, of lack of.

Go back to the front line moron.

I jumped in to point out that there was more to the dust than 'micronised concrete'. Of course, that didn't sit well with the then-current 'sublimating steel' theory being touted which is a whole Hell of a lot more absurd than the dust containing drywall, body parts, bits of jet, etc..

I'm game for discussion but draw the line at people repeating ridiculous claims while dismissing out of hand any reasonable suggestion that doesn't goosestep to their mindset. And as far as joining "the thread in order to spout your own opinion when there are plenty of other threads for people with your level of intelligence" (or lack thereof), people in glass houses.......

FFS The evidence has shown that 99% of the concrete was pulverized to dust, and has been stated by numerous people who visited ground zero shortly after 9/11. Goto youtube and search around, there are numerous videos of these witnessess, firefighters, steelworkers etc.

YOUR claim that it was drywall IS absurd, for reasons stated above. You have done nothing but bitch your opinion onto everyone in this thread, like Tom has, ever since you joined the thread. You have done NOTHING constructive to help the thread, and you know it.

I don't want to drag this out, but just leave already. I know you don't want to argue, and neither do i. I want to get back to actually discussing the nuke hypothesis in a sensible way, instead of trying to convince you and Tom that it is possible.

If you want to debate how the towers collapsed, goto the correct thread for #s sake.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
FFS

The evidence has shown that 99% of the concrete was pulverized to dust, and has been stated by numerous people who visited ground zero shortly after 9/11. Goto youtube and search around, there are numerous videos of these witnessess, firefighters, steelworkers etc.

What's at issue is the mode of pulverisation. This thread's hypothesis is ridiculous that way. You just don't happen to like any suggestions to the contrary.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonYOUR claim that it was drywall IS absurd, for reasons stated above.

I said it (repeatedly, I might add) that claiming it's all concrete is ridiculous. When I came in, the claim was that the dust was sublimating steel. That claim was off the wall. Now it's all concrete and nothing but concrete. That too is off the wall.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonYou have done nothing but bitch your opinion onto everyone in this thread, like Tom has, ever since you joined the thread. You have done NOTHING constructive to help the thread, and you know it.

I've just not suffered fools as gladly as he has but if your definition of constructive is rabid and complete agreement, then yours is a small world.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonI don't want to drag this out, but just leave already.

Sorry, did I miss the clipping where you bought ATS? Absent that, if you don't like or can't handle discussion or debate, then I'll kindly invite YOU to leave.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonI know you don't want to argue, and neither do i. I want to get back to actually discussing the nuke hypothesis in a sensible way, instead of trying to convince you and Tom that it is possible.

If you want to debate how the towers collapsed, goto the correct thread for #s sake.

Silly me. I call BS on someone claiming nukes brought the towers down and I'm in the wrong thread? Get over yourself.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
FFS

The evidence has shown that 99% of the concrete was pulverized to dust, and has been stated by numerous people who visited ground zero shortly after 9/11. Goto youtube and search around, there are numerous videos of these witnessess, firefighters, steelworkers etc.

What's at issue is the mode of pulverisation. This thread's hypothesis is ridiculous that way. You just don't happen to like any suggestions to the contrary.

Dear Fitzgibbon:

What exactly is ridiculous here? That neutrons superheated the water in the concrete, turning it into high-pressure steam causing it to explode into anhydrate Portland cement whilst vaporizing the silica content? .

Look, it’s impossible for us to prove a negative. Sort of like Saddam Hussein couldn’t prove he didn’t have any WMD -- because he had none. We cannot definitively show that there weren’t any chunky monkey pieces of concrete from the 220 floor slabs at the twin tower sites — because there were none. However it is possible to show physical object — provided that they exist. So, please, why don’t YOU produce the pictures of concrete rubble piles at the WTC’s.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by gottago

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.

Actually it was 'welcome back to the thread.

I know of at least a couple of the supposed aspects of supporting evidence have been out down.

Reread my request very carefully please.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam


That's a lot of mass falling a long way - there's a lot of energy there ready for grinding stuff to giblets, which you've seen happens even on much shorter buildings. If you look at the rubble pile from any large building collapse, it all looks about the same.

And I'll spit your statement back at you - a nuke is not capable of producing the observed effects. If you think it is, name the top one or two effects you think it produced, and how, and we can discuss it logically. But you can't invoke mystery - no argument by hand-waving "it just did".

So list out your top one or two claims, every one of you is different. Just the first and mainmost one or two - if you think a nuke magically turned the entire contents of the building to dust, say it, and how you think that happens, otherwise I have no clue where you're coming from.

TB,

Two important points here.

First, you say without any grounding in reality, that the collapse of the building itself is responsible--not for the pulverization but the micronization--of the concrete, a portion of the steel and most of the building's contents.

Essentially, the force of gravity crushed all that to itty-itty-bitty little particles. Sorry. Just. Not. Serious.

First, how did it already happen on the way down? It wasn't when all that stuff hit the ground that it became micronized, but in the air. Amazing physics there.

So then, by your reasoning, why didn't the jumpers also micronize when they hit the ground? They fell as far and as fast as the buildings, but they didn't turn to dust, did they?

Secondly, you can't pick and chose which one or two observed effects fit your
agenda, or only deal with them. This is not a box of chocolates; the whole list must be accounted for. And it is a very weird and disturbing one.

I made such a list a few pages ago, and SS signed on to it, adding only localized emp effects.

Let's work from that, shall we?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
FFS

The evidence has shown that 99% of the concrete was pulverized to dust, and has been stated by numerous people who visited ground zero shortly after 9/11. Goto youtube and search around, there are numerous videos of these witnessess, firefighters, steelworkers etc.

What's at issue is the mode of pulverisation. This thread's hypothesis is ridiculous that way. You just don't happen to like any suggestions to the contrary.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonYOUR claim that it was drywall IS absurd, for reasons stated above.

I said it (repeatedly, I might add) that claiming it's all concrete is ridiculous. When I came in, the claim was that the dust was sublimating steel. That claim was off the wall. Now it's all concrete and nothing but concrete. That too is off the wall.

Don't latch on to the micronized dust if you want to debunk, because that stuff isn't gonna help you.

That 2-inch coating on lower Manhattan we've all seen--the quality of talcum powder--was mostly micronized concrete, with lesser amounts of steel and exotic metals, the last ID'd as coming from the computers in the towers.

That is very unusual stuff by anyone's standards.

Please explain it rationally, without flames. --Or jet fuel, for that matter.

The reason why it makes no sense, and why Tom and Fitz are obviously trolling is because they overlook one simple observational fact;

At 1-2 seconds after the start of the collapse, using the laws of physics/laws of motion, only 2-3 floors MAXIMUM (really only 1) would have smashed together, yet we see HUGE volumes of pulverized dust exiting all 4 sides of the building..

That is simply NOT possible without the use of some kind of explosive force. Even a 12yr old could make the point i've just made, it is simple physics and a matter of the TIME.

This is why i say to people who want to know the truth.. "WATCH THE DAMN VIDEOS". All the truth you need is right there in plain site! And would be even more obvious if the mainstream media didn't edit out the audio of the explosions!

Thanks to Rick Seigel, we have conclusive footage where you can hear 3-4 massive explosions just before each tower came down.

So again, Tom and Fitz, if your going to claim a gravity collapse, GOTO THE RIGHT THREAD! This thread is not for either of you, as you evidently don't have the mental capacity to understand the SIMPLE observational facts i've just pointed out..either that or you both wilfully ignorant, in which case ATS is not for you either.

I have contacted a moderator who will hopefully ask you both to leave. We have wasted several pages debating with you two idiots, and i did not join this thread to waste my energy arguing with two morons. I joined this thread to discuss the details of this hypothesis.

More over, i have been contacted by someone who is making a proper documentary on the nuke hypothesis, and you are both wasting my time when i could be gathering information/discussing with the members here, which i could then pass on to the guy making the film.

Originally posted by gottago

TB,

Two important points here.

First, you say without any grounding in reality, that the collapse of the building itself is responsible--not for the pulverization but the micronization--of the concrete, a portion of the steel and most of the building's contents.

Essentially, the force of gravity crushed all that to itty-itty-bitty little particles. Sorry. Just. Not. Serious.

You're stretching a bit - I don't agree that much of the steel was "micronized", some of it was but not much of it. And yes, I think there was a lot of the concrete that was crushed during the collapse. I don't think you can identify the building's contents for reasons I have stated, and hold by. You want to say they were "micronized", but I look at the rubble photos and see a lot of mangled crap, it looks just like the other building collapse photos. Which also show powdered concrete and concrete that has been reduced to 3-6cm chunks.

It's possible that it wasn't ALL powdered by the collapse - for the purposes of discussion I'm postulating explosives that are designed to disrupt the integrity of buildings, one of the effects is that it tends to powder concrete and deform steel.

First, how did it already happen on the way down? It wasn't when all that stuff hit the ground that it became micronized, but in the air. Amazing physics there.

So then, by your reasoning, why didn't the jumpers also micronize when they hit the ground? They fell as far and as fast as the buildings, but they didn't turn to dust, did they?

Where are the missing people? No, I don't think they "micronized" - you really love that word I see - but they are gone. How? Crushed in the rubble and burned/rotted beyond recognition. People are mushy and wet. When they hit they splat. Concrete is hard and turns to chunks and dust. Steel deforms and bounces. You can't be serious trying to compare them.

Secondly, you can't pick and chose which one or two observed effects fit your
agenda, or only deal with them. This is not a box of chocolates; the whole list must be accounted for. And it is a very weird and disturbing one.

I made such a list a few pages ago, and SS signed on to it, adding only localized emp effects.

Let's work from that, shall we?

Sure, and I gave you a starting point a few pages back when ss started foaming at the mouth that it wasn't an answer - it wasn't intended to be as should have been clear - but ss doesn't seem to read for content.

But you also seem to be one of those that thinks there is one and only one reason for anything in a s--tstorm like that collapse, and I can tell you it's rarely true, which if you think about for a while you'll have to admit - there's a lot going on.

Anyways, Lillian's is calling, with her siren's song of delicious handmade pasta. While I'm gone, you and/or WITW figure up what the speculation de jour is. At one time it was the concrete and steel turning to dust, then just the concrete. I think you're still on the steel thing whereas WITW appears to have abandoned it. Also, where do you think the magic bomb was - basement pointing upwards (directed, too, what a trick!), on the plane, just below the strike or what?

And are you guys saying the entire contents of the building were turned to dust by furni-trons, neutrons, heat output, what? Not exploded? Just turned to dust? I want to be clear on it. Also some idea of the time frame over which you think that happened - the entire core of the building dustified in what, 100ns or so?

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Look, it’s impossible for us to prove a negative. Sort of like Saddam Hussein couldn’t prove he didn’t have any WMD -- because he had none. We cannot definitively show that there weren’t any chunky monkey pieces of concrete from the 220 floor slabs at the twin tower sites — because there were none. However it is possible to show physical object — provided that they exist. So, please, why don’t YOU produce the pictures of concrete rubble piles at the WTC’s.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Your wish is my command:

It's easy to find photos of concrete rubble. What's harder is photos made by the crane/backhoe operators while they were digging out the debris.

Originally posted by gottago...and exotic metals, the last ID'd as coming from the computers in the towers.

That is very unusual stuff by anyone's standards.

Please explain it rationally, without flames. --Or jet fuel, for that matter.

Just curious - who "ID'd it as coming from computers"? Is there a URL to it? I'm not at all sure what they'd be seeing as definitively from a computer after it's been turned to dust.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The reason why it makes no sense, and why Tom and Fitz are obviously trolling is because they overlook one simple observational fact;

At 1-2 seconds after the start of the collapse, using the laws of physics/laws of motion, only 2-3 floors MAXIMUM (really only 1) would have smashed together, yet we see HUGE volumes of pulverized dust exiting all 4 sides of the building..

That is simply NOT possible without the use of some kind of explosive force. Even a 12yr old could make the point i've just made, it is simple physics and a matter of the TIME.

Though you of course won't see this, I'll reply anyway. You are ignoring what I said, even in that very post I said it twice - I'll conjecture that explosives were used. You don't want to see this, although I had a long back and forth with selfless right above it over the same issue. Why? You're afraid to address the details of your theory.

So again, Tom and Fitz, if your going to claim a gravity collapse, GOTO THE RIGHT THREAD! This thread is not for either of you, as you evidently don't have the mental capacity to understand the SIMPLE observational facts i've just pointed out..either that or you both wilfully ignorant, in which case ATS is not for you either.

I have contacted a moderator who will hopefully ask you both to leave. We have wasted several pages debating with you two idiots, and i did not join this thread to waste my energy arguing with two morons. I joined this thread to discuss the details of this hypothesis.

Great! I like most of the mods. I'm quite sure that they will agree that in a thread which states that "micronukes were used on the WTC", that an analysis of why this cannot be so is VERY topical. As is an alternate explanation of what did happen that fits at least most of your points. I'm still digging to see if I can find unclassified material worthy of putting on here as regards my counter-theory. Unfortunately it's still pretty new stuff so all the material is press-release level "we invented this new stuff and it is pretty", which isn't worth putting up IMO.

But at any rate, the "your theory is incorrect" parts are still very topical, whether you like them or not. And your "I went to mommy and she's going to spank you with a switch" effort is yet another indication that you can't tolerate a dissenting opinion. Look at your posts - every one has a whiney complaint that if the other posters do not agree with you they should be removed. That's not denying ignorance, is it?

I also love the part where you call on the mods to save you from a different opinion, only to toss in two or three direct insults.

More over, i have been contacted by someone who is making a proper documentary on the nuke hypothesis, and you are both wasting my time when i could be gathering information/discussing with the members here, which i could then pass on to the guy making the film.

Good Lord. If there's someone making a documentary on this and he's using you as an expert source, I can only imagine the quality he's going for. And what a pitiful statement! "Ooo, I have a friend making a real movie based on my inputs- so I cannot be questioned!" I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

What exactly is ridiculous here? That neutrons superheated the water in the concrete, turning it into high-pressure steam causing it to explode into anhydrate Portland cement whilst vaporizing the silica content?

An interesting conjecture - I thought about it over a nice calzone, and I thought I'd ask you...did it?

Are you saying all the dust in the area became Portland cement? Because just leaving aside the physical difficulties with your neutron supposition, I would then expect all of that dust to go through the typical Portland cement hydration reaction next time that it rained, or was wet with a hose or what not.

So I'd expect cement chunks to have formed all over Manhattan, everywhere there was a dust deposit. Especially in the pit, where they were playing firehoses on it. Did you get a big basement shaped concrete plug? I don't recall hearing about that.

Being serious here - taking your idea at face value, would you not expect the firemen's hoses to have solidified huge expanses of the dust into cement? I won't say concrete because I'm assuming it wouldn't have the proper sand and aggregate. But I would expect a huge plaster-like mass to have formed there, and anywhere else in downtown where the dust fell thickly enough to have caked.

Surely something this odd would have drawn mention. You didn't bring it up, nor anyone else on the thread, or anywhere else I've heard of. So can I safely assume it did not?

I apologize if this has been posted in this thread before.

I came across this while reading another thread on ATS. I dont know if its true or not but Im sure a patent check could be done on it. If these are real could they have been around prior to 9-11?

Some patents, now owned by Raytheon, describe how to make "nuclear sized explosions without radiation" and describe power beam systems, electromagnetic pulses and over-the-horizon detection systems.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.etlife.co.uk...

Originally posted by etshrtslr
I apologize if this has been posted in this thread before.

I came across this while reading another thread on ATS. I dont know if its true or not but Im sure a patent check could be done on it. If these are real could they have been around prior to 9-11?

Some patents, now owned by Raytheon, describe how to make "nuclear sized explosions without radiation" and describe power beam systems, electromagnetic pulses and over-the-horizon detection systems.

This was originally a quote from that Begich material at haarp.net, which unfortunately is pretty much pure garbage, although it looks real.

Basically, Begich dumped a listing of patent titles by APTI and tried to associate every patent that sounded ominous with HAARP, although it's hilariously obvious he didn't read any of them for content. Or maybe he wasn't technically capable - he's a doctor of homeopathy, I think.

Anyways, the "nuclear sized explosions without radiation" was about pumping a structure full of liquid methane and liquid oxygen, then touching it off with an ignition source.

The power beam systems thing is an APTI spin-off for sending solar power down from a satellite to a field full of rectennae in the desert.

The OTH thing is a plasma mirror trick that's been done at least in testing, but it doesn't have anything to do with this. It's a way of bouncing a radar (or radio comm link) off an excited spot in the ionosphere.

But to answer your question, yes, they were all around prior to 9-11, but none of them are related.