4th Generation MicroNukes Used on WTC1,2 and 7

We seem to be faced with 2 possibilities here:

A: fusion explosions that are instantaneous (thermonuclear)

B: ongoing unattended high energy fusion reactions keeping the rubble hot for some reason that escapes me. Not to mention that this is the holy grail of nuclear research and, as yet, not achieved.

I see no evidence to support either of those possibilities so far.

posted by Seymour Butz

Does this guy claim that steel was vaporized too?

Well that would be a good reason for the 9-11 Perpetrators to hurriedly gather up and ship most of the remaining steel out of country and to China, wouldn't it? Apparently the 9-11 perps did have something to hide.



You know to cover-up maybe the fact that a good percentage of the steel from the twin towers was apparently missing, and was possibly vaporized or turned to dust? FEMA claims 350,000 tons of steel was shipped from the WTC. But other sources claim only 185,101 tons of steel was shipped from the WTC. Where is the missing 164,899 tons of structural steel? Disintegrated? Turned to dust?

So that we can learn from the tragedy of September 11 (the pathetically small number of) 146 pieces of steel, were saved for future study. Of course, those responsible for September 11, want us to learn nothing.

Of the estimated 1.5 million tons of WTC concrete, steel, and other debris, more than 350,000 tons of steel have been extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it is cut up for recycling. Salvage yard operations are shown in Figures D-1 through D-3. Four salvage yards were contracted to process WTC steel:

911research.wtc7.net...

“Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”
N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02

During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.

www.china.org.cn...

“New York authorities have the awesome problem of disposing of the 1.62 million tons of rubble that went to the nearby Fresh Kills landfill from the World Trade Center site. Some memorial sculptures made from recycled steel have been commissioned by the city, and tribute sculptures have now been erected in many civic and private facilities throughout the country.”

“The awesome problem” they have is 1.62 million tons of steel and not a ton for testing? I mean it sounds like they don’t know what to do with it. Why not shove some of it up the perpetrators’ collective ass, after we put a nice point on it. And then let us test a few thousand tons of it, every which way we can. This is live evidence which can serve for justice to the dead.

onlinejournal.com...

The hangar, which reportedly holds one five-hundredth of the "total debris field", is off-limits to the public. Scott Huston, president of the Graystone Society, is attempting to obtain three of the steel trees for the National Iron & Steel Heritage Museum in Coatesville, PA. 9

The discovery of the existence of intact pieces of the Twin Towers' columns would appear to be good news for independent investigators who would like to test samples of steel. However, the locations of these pieces within the towers suggests a reason they were allowed to be preserved. The large core column sections stood on the Towers' foundations, seven stories below street level, and the perimeter column trees were from the lobby level, just above street level. Only these lower sections of the Towers were spared the blasting that shredded the steel frames down to about their fourth stories. This is evident from the facts that 18 people survived in the lower reaches of the North Tower's core, and fragments of the perimeter walls of each Tower remained standing.

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 2/5/09 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston

Where is the missing 164,899 tons of structural steel? Disintegrated? Turned to dust?

You sure you wanna go there?

I looked up my old post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It was a blast yield equivalent to 7.5k tons to vaporize 5,000 tons of steel.

So for 165,000 tons of steel to vaporize would yield a blast effect equivalent to ~ 250 kilotons of TNT.



[edit on 5-2-2009 by Seymour Butz]

reply to post by cogburn


I tend to have a problem with those that have unreferenced ifs, shoulds and have not even read the articles. But, again, I have no problem with legitimate factual information that may contradict my references. I don't knowingly write BS and if I do, I will gladly change it. I try to only deal in REFERENCED FACTS, but in some instances will give an opinion based on those facts. So far, not one single reference has had to be changed and it's been almost 2 years, longer for my original article.

DrEd



[edit on 5-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

reply to post by Seymour Butz


I'd like to see the calculations. How did you measure neutron activation which is most likely the MAIN source of heat in steel, not the local blast temperature which is significant but is not nearly as far reaching as neutron activation at a significantly greater distance.

Ah, you simply ignored neutron activation and did a futher reduction by taking 20% of TNT. Useless calculations. Not only does it not include neutrons, you just made up a percentage to the reduce the value of blast effects.


DrEd


[edit on 5-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

reply to post by SPreston


Excellent factual referenced posting. A couple of the links I had not seen before. Thanks for your efforts.

Re vaporized steel. They have admitted there at least missing steel as demonstrated by their BS 'rapid oxidation' theory in some remaining beams. Completely Bogus Science. 911research.wtc7.net... The link was handy, but the site IMO is just another of the BYU crews efforts to hide the Israeli nuke evidence under the BS of Jones, et al.

Every gram of steel taken off site was washed 2 or 3 times to remove the radiation - tritium.

Ed



[edit on 5-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

[edit on 5-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

How could it have possible been a micronuke? You claim it set the cars on fire at a distance. Ok. Great. But it just so happened to ignore the people jumping from the building as it was falling? Weren't the remains of bodies pulled from the rubble?

posted by EdWardMD
reply to post by SPreston

 

Excellent factual referenced posting. A couple of the links I had not seen before. Thanks for your efforts.

Re vaporized steel. They have admitted there at least missing steel as demonstrated by their BS 'rapid oxidation' theory in some remaining beams. Completely Bogus Science. 911research.wtc7.net... The link was handy, but the site IMO is just another of the BYU crews efforts to hide the Israeli nuke evidence under the BS of Jones, et al.

Every gram of steel taken off site was washed 2 or 3 times to remove the radiation - tritium.

Here is an interactive panorama view from inside Hanger 17 at Kennedy airport with a few pieces of steel salvaged from the WTC. Click on the link, choose front or back of hanger or inside tent, then go to full screen if you wish. With your mouse you can pan any direction you choose or stop the panning.

Inside Hanger 17

You can rotate the three views downward and backward. You can even look straight up at the ceiling.

reply to post by pjslug
At the risk of oversimplification, this relates to the conservation of energy.

If the energy is expended in the destruction of the core columns (required for full collapse), the energy may very well not be present to vaporize a human being. This would require and extremely low-yield nuclear weapon, tuned specifically for the environment of the WTC.

The thing that makes the whole "suitcase nuke" theory plausible is that all of the required technical elements were well documented as having existed prior to 2001. This is in comparison to "no plane" theories which required real-time graphics generation and holographic projection the likes of which simply did not exist at the time.

There are three lines of evidence that are required to prove this theory as accurate.

First, the presence of residual materials resultant from the nuclear detonation. I've got only passing experience in nuclear physics, but more than enough to verify if Dr. Ward's research is accurate and complete. The presence of radioactive material does not indicate a nuke, it simply indicates unexplained radioactive material. We'll just need to run through the research to verify that we're all talking apples to apples.

The second line of evidence required is to place the nukes with Israel, based on Dr. Ward's statements. Israel did indeed sell 30g of tritium to South Africa back in '77-'79 and tritium is used to boost the yield of a plutonium device. So we know Israel had the technology to manufacture industrial amounts of tritium.

Tritium is not something easy to make. One must displace the production of 8g of plutonium for 1g of tritium. The list of countries that can produce industrial quantities of tritium are less than the members of the Nuclear Club.

Now here's the rub... no suitcase sized plutonium weapon was evidenced prior to 2001. The technology required to manufacture a plutonium bomb is infinitely harder than that of the uranium bomb. Conversely, it's harder to generate weapon-grade uranium than it is to generate weapon-grade plutonium. It's even harder to micronize a plutonium bomb enriched with a tritium fusion booster. Smallest recorded prior to 2001 was the size of a refrigerator.

The third line of evidence required is that which places the nukes inside the building.

The trick is trying to build a bomb that has all of the factors required by the physical evidence. High enough yield to cut the core columns. Low enough yield not to be witnessed outside the building or leave radiation effected witnesses. Enough tritium to be evidenced in amounts as dictated by Dr. Ward, yet within the specifications required for fusion boosting.

There's the conspiracy... easy as 1, 2, 3.

I'm looking forward to this weekend.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by pjslug

 

At the risk of oversimplification, this relates to the conservation of energy.

If the energy is expended in the destruction of the core columns (required for full collapse), the energy may very well not be present to vaporize a human being. This would require and extremely low-yield nuclear weapon, tuned specifically for the environment of the WTC.

The thing that makes the whole "suitcase nuke" theory plausible is that all of the required technical elements were well documented as having existed prior to 2001. This is in comparison to "no plane" theories which required real-time graphics generation and holographic projection the likes of which simply did not exist at the time.

There are three lines of evidence that are required to prove this theory as accurate.

First, the presence of residual materials resultant from the nuclear detonation. I've got only passing experience in nuclear physics, but more than enough to verify if Dr. Ward's research is accurate and complete. The presence of radioactive material does not indicate a nuke, it simply indicates unexplained radioactive material. We'll just need to run through the research to verify that we're all talking apples to apples.

The second line of evidence required is to place the nukes with Israel, based on Dr. Ward's statements. Israel did indeed sell 30g of tritium to South Africa back in '77-'79 and tritium is used to boost the yield of a plutonium device. So we know Israel had the technology to manufacture industrial amounts of tritium.

Tritium is not something easy to make. One must displace the production of 8g of plutonium for 1g of tritium. The list of countries that can produce industrial quantities of tritium are less than the members of the Nuclear Club.

Now here's the rub... no suitcase sized plutonium weapon was evidenced prior to 2001. The technology required to manufacture a plutonium bomb is infinitely harder than that of the uranium bomb. Conversely, it's harder to generate weapon-grade uranium than it is to generate weapon-grade plutonium. It's even harder to micronize a plutonium bomb enriched with a tritium fusion booster. Smallest recorded prior to 2001 was the size of a refrigerator.

The third line of evidence required is that which places the nukes inside the building.

The trick is trying to build a bomb that has all of the factors required by the physical evidence. High enough yield to cut the core columns. Low enough yield not to be witnessed outside the building or leave radiation effected witnesses. Enough tritium to be evidenced in amounts as dictated by Dr. Ward, yet within the specifications required for fusion boosting.

There's the conspiracy... easy as 1, 2, 3.

I'm looking forward to this weekend.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by cogburn]

Just had to save this BS - He, Larry, Us.

You'd have saved yourself alot of embarresment by using the time you spent to write this BS and simply skimming the 2 main articles about which you are using your 'adequate nuclear physics' expertise to comment about that which you have clearly not even looked at. Simply amazing to me that others can formulate about that which they know absolutely nothing about - ie have not even skimmed, let alone adequately read.

"""""""""""the W54 nuke was developed in 1961. The W54 was a micro-nuke that weighed 51 pounds and could be fired from a slightly modified ordinary bazooka. Different versions of the W54 ranged from .01 kt to 1 kt yield.""""""""""""""

""It was not until around 15 years ago that the existence of the neutron bomb was noted. It was during this period that a trial regarding Chinese espionage forced the revelation of the neutron bomb. Shortly thereafter, Reagan deployed the W70 version with a yield range of 0.8 kt to 1.6 kt.""

Wow. That's unexpected.

What is the material in a W54? Plutonium or uranium? Makes a big difference in how the chain reaction is started. It also speaks volumes for the technology required to produce such a bomb.

I did say that uranium micronukes were around in 2001. Uranium nukes, as far as I am aware, do not employ fusion boosters. If you are implying tritium as evidence of a nuclear detonation that implies such a booster. That in turn requires a plutonium micro-nuke.

Given that artillery based nuclear weapons are primarily uranium-based, I'm not sure how W54 nukes are relevant.

Either you did not completely read my post or you do not understand the difference in technology required for a uranium as opposed to a plutonium bomb and how that relates to the use of tritium.

If you can provide documentation of a plutonium nuke smaller than a refrigerator prior to 2001 I'll eat my words with katsup, because I have yet to find one.

Unless you're committed to a neutron bomb, which does change things as far as steps 2 and 3 as I outlined in my previous post. Are you saying that it was without a doubt a neutron bomb or a micronized plutonium bomb with a fusion booster?

[edit on 5-2-2009 by cogburn]

TRY ACTUALLY READING THE ARTICLE AND DEALING WITH PROVEN FACTS - THIRD TIME - UNTIL THEN, JUST KEEP POSTING BS AND I'LL KEEPING NOTING IT'S BS. Let's see what could I be saying? '''''''''''''FOURTH GENERATION MICRONUKES USED ON WTC 1, 2, 6.''''''''''''''' TRY READING THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD 'WHEN YOU GET TIME'. Start slow and work up to reading a whole article or two, 10 or 15 more on certain specifics.

DrEd

[edit on 6-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

reply to post by EdWardMD

I'm trying but most of your reference links are broken on the page below.

www.thepriceofliberty.org...

Providing new references for the claims made on that page would be very helpful. Without supporting material it's not really possible to discuss. The argument is incomplete and it would be disingenuous of me to do so without affording you the opportunity to present your material in full.

However it's notable that every single nuclear weapon mentioned on that page is a uranium bomb, with the exception of the W70.

The W70 was actually a two-stage munition, having both a "regular" nuclear detonation and a "enhanced radiation" phase. The lethality of the combined explosives was greater than either one in separate.
www.globalsecurity.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

The W80 is smaller and does contain a neutron generator, however this generator serves as a fission booster (NOT a fusion booster) and is also a uranium based weapon.
www.globalsecurity.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I'll read the other documents, but without the provision of the supporting material there isn't much discussion to be had with the link above.

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by EdWardMD

 

I'm trying but most of your reference links are broken on the page below.

www.thepriceofliberty.org...

Providing new references for the claims made on that page would be very helpful. Without supporting material it's not really possible to discuss. The argument is incomplete and it would be disingenuous of me to do so without affording you the opportunity to present your material in full.

More BS. When you get to some facts in the article that are untrue we will then have something to chat about. Got no use for BS and BSers that continue to refuse to deal with the facts in the article and are determined to go off on some BS tangent. Try reading the title again. It seems you may have a reading problem. You get to a fact that the link does not work and you have proof it's not true I'll get you a link. BTW MOST OF THE LINKS NOT WORKING IS AN OUT AND OUT LIE AND COMPLETE BS. You are filling out the profile of a scammer - Lies and refusal to deal with the facts in the article - just tangential BS from start to finish. The article is 3 years old some minor links no longer work ALL OF THE MAIN LINKS WORK. Except the nuke program. I knew they'd take that sucker down. The program provided what I thought was most likely classified information thanks to the shrub regime. What a coincidence - information on less than a 1kt nuke IS CLASSIFIED BY THE BUSH REGIME. MURDERING SCUMBAGS OF RELIGIOUS FANATICS, IMO.

DrEd

[edit on 6-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

reply to post by EdWardMD

Well then please assist me. What is it that you would consider the "main links" on the page.

You could have just provided them.

Regardless of the availability of the WMD links, can you explain how

www.thepriceofliberty.org...

I'll address 4 points on this page... 50% of which I find wanting.

Issue: I take issue with the use of the word "crater". WTC1 and WTC2 had SIX subbasements, including one that connected to a PATH tunnel. WTC6 had at least 5 subbasements. These holes aren't craters... these holes are basements.

Some time is dedicated to the "crater" depth of WTC6, but I've already mentioned that WTC6 had at least 5 basement levels. You state:

...WTC 6 - 8 stories tall - debris pile MINUS 3 stories

No mention of the fact that the basement was in fact deep enough to accomodate those "missing" 3 stories of debris. One could assume that the heat signatures indicated in the basement of WTC6 could have resulted from the debris that created the damage in the first place. Furthermore, in the video presented of the collapse of WTC1, there is nothing to indicate anything other than a smoke cloud resulting from the impact of debris falling through the building.

This is totally ignoring the fact that WTC6 was not a total collapse.

Not an Issue: Let's take a look at the WTC1 debris piles based on the information you presented.

Density of high grade steel = 8.05 g/cm3
1 foot = 0.3048 meters
Approx tonnage of steel in a single WTC tower: 22,679.6 metric tons = 22,679,600,000 grams
22,679,600,000 grams = 2,817,341,614.9cm3 = 28,173,416.2m3 = a cube 304.2m or 998.0ft to a side

Estimated depth WTC of basement: 6 subbasement floors at an estimated 12ft per floor = 72ft.
LIDAR estimated depth of rubble pile of WTC1: +60ft from sea level at the extreme. Let's take a conservative value for an average spread of damage and say if it were leveled out it would be a consistant 25ft above sea level.
Estimated depth of debris pile: 97ft = 29.5656m
Width of hole of WTC1: 300ft = 91.44m
Estimated volume of debris indicated by LIDAR in WTC1: 247,206.1m3

Percentage of LIDAR volume compared to estimated total volume of steel: 0.9%

Now that's just funky. However it does illustrate that there is a distinct difference in the rubble piles between WTC1 and WTC6. The debris pile for WTC6 would appear to be an accurate amount of material, however the debris pile of WTC1 ... doesn't stack up.

Not an Issue: Can't argue with the heat signatures... it's one of the primary reasons the WTC collapse are still in the realm of conspiracy theory.

Issue: I also have a problem with jumping to the conclusion that the cancers that have arisen from the exposure to Ground Zero are radiological.

The foul odor clogged the air for the three months that Vallebuona ended up working at the site—first on the Pile, hauling rubble with buckets, then around the perimeter, providing security and escorting residents to their dust-laden homes.
www.villagevoice.com...

Because Walcott was a detective, he ended up spending his five-month stint not just at ground zero, but also at Fresh Kills.
www.villagevoice.com...

In reality, the 9-11 fallout was like nothing anyone had been exposed to before. Everything in the towers had been ground into dust—concrete, steel, glass, insulation, plastic, and computers. Dust analyses would detect glass shards, cement particles, cellulose fibers, asbestos, and a mixture of harmful components, including lead, titanium, barium, and gypsum. In all, the dust contained more than 100 different compounds, some of which have never been identified. And then there were the fires that smoldered for three months. They gave off not only the putrid plume, but also a blast of carcinogens—asbestos, dioxin, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs. They also emitted benzene.
www.villagevoice.com...

You claim the MD not me, but are you an oncologist? What is it about 3-5 month, 6-15 hour per day exposure to aerosoled known carcinogens leads you to believe the cancers were caused from something other than the chemicals found (and unargued by anyone) at the site?

What specifically about these cancers do you determine to be radiological in nature? It just so happens I have access to 3 oncologists and will be presenting your answer to them for validation and comment as I personally am not qualified. I will respect a request for privacy, but I will include names and credentials for those that agree to such a disclosure.

------------------------------------------

I'm going to hold off on the tritium discussion until I have a chance to dig in on the third link presented. That one is going to take a while to digest.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
www.thepriceofliberty.org...
. WTC6 had at least 5 subbasements. These holes aren't craters... these holes are basements.

Basements are no different than floors on each story. As per referenced in the article debris piles of collapsed floors - including basements since the those were also collapsed by something that is not there anymoref - should be 1/3 the height of the building - which you conveniently did not note. 5 stories of basement ( u need reference on thickness of floors - considerably THICKER than the building floors - , structures, etc for your 12 foot 'statement'), 8 stories of building 4 stories minimum of debris, yet the crater is 30 to 55 feet deep - center deeper than sides per referenced pictures so not all of the basements collapsed - we are still missing 20 feet of debris or about 3 stories of debris. Although your estimates are great facts, you need some documented facts before you can claim 5 floors of basement are nothing but a hole - especially since these floors were significantly thicker than the other floors.

Some time is dedicated to the "crater" depth of WTC6, but I've already mentioned that WTC6 had at least 5 basement levels. You state:

...WTC 6 - 8 stories tall - debris pile MINUS 3 stories

-

Again you neglect the floors and structures, cars, etc and again lead one to believe there was nothing but thin air making 5 floors of basement and mislead to 'estimate' these floors are nothing but a hole. You also mislead to indicate the entire basement were flattened but again, lidar and pictures show only the central portions of the basements were taken out and not all the entire basement structures.

No mention of the fact that the basement was in fact deep enough to accomodate those "missing" 3 stories of debris.

Again, your 'estimates' do not correlate with established referenced parimeters for debris from 'collapsed' buildings - conveniently - so you need some references for this BS.


One could assume that the heat signatures indicated in the basement of WTC6 could have resulted from the debris that created the damage in the first place. Furthermore, in the video presented of the collapse of WTC1, there is nothing to indicate anything other than a smoke cloud resulting from the impact of debris falling through the building.

Ah, so you are saying that there is even more debris from wtc1 which would make the difference even greater - if debris came from 1 it has to be added to the 'estimated' and the referenced correct 1/3 debris pile height.

Got some references for this smoke cloud BS that shoots up hundreds of feet as the result of just a collapsed building falling on another building? Or is it another 'estimate' that is to be taken as a referenced fact?

Also, need some references for 'assume' too. Let's see, lots of estimates, assumptions based on nothing = BS, not facts. On to the rest of the BS.

DrEd

[edit on 6-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by EdWardMD

 

Well then please assist me. What is it that you would consider the "main links" on the page.

You could have just provided them.

Yeah, I'll write a new article for you, cause you simply want to deny referenced facts. YOU SIMPLY COULD READ THE ARTICLE AND PROVIDE SOME ACTUAL REFERENCED FACTS RATHER THAN ESTIMATES, ASSUMES, ETC, IN THE FEW LINKS - NOT MOST AS THE LIE WAS STATED SO YOU COULD SAY YOU COULD NOT COMMENT ON IT SINCE MOST OF THE LINKS DIDN'T WORK - ON THE THINGS YOU ESTIMATE AND ASSUME ARE NOT CORRECT.

Dammit ate the rest of the post. l8r.


DrEd


[edit on 6-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by EdWardMD]

• If you'd like to count the basement floors, you should update your website with them as well. The WTC6 collapse, by your previous statements, would be a 12 floor collapse (given that it all collapsed into the 13th floor).
  
• WTC6 was not a total collapse therefore there is no reason to believe the debris pile should be any higher than was evidenced. This would be the point of the information presented on your webpage and I would ask that you support it. Please provide your sources for the amount of material removed from the bottom of WTC6 and how this is inconsistent with the damage sustained to WTC6 and the resulting debris from WTC1.
  
• Average height of a floor in a skyscraper is 12ft-16ft. Pick a number that makes you happy and we can use that number in all further calculations.
  
• Estimates are just that... estimates. However you offer not a single alternative or fact to support your assertion that my estimates are in any way inaccurate or misleading to the point they are meant to illustrate.
  
• The tonnage of steel in the WTC that I used may be found in this very thread, to which no one took issue. If you have an alternate number that is more properly sourced I'd be more than happy to use that number and perform the calculations again... assuming you provide the source.
  
• My assumption that the smoke plume visible from WTC6 is a result of debris is no less factually supported than your assertion of an alternative explanation. Until further investigation proves one or the other, it is only intellectually honest to give both scenarios credence. This may not be your opinion given your position, however it is mine.
  

reply to post by EdWardMD

The first page lays out your initial argument, to which all other pages are offered as supporting evidence.

Any questions I would have as far as how you reached your later conclusions would be answered in the links that aren't there.

Either I could list out all the questions I have or you could just fix the links since you'll have to provide the proof of research anyway.

Let me know which way you'd like to proceed.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by cogburn]