4th Generation MicroNukes Used on WTC1,2 and 7

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
www.lonelantern.org...

This is right at the beginning of the collapse..thats alot of drywall eh

Close but not that close to the beginning that there wouldn't have been a large energy transfer to lower floors. And are you suggesting there isn't a healthy (or unhealthy as you prefer) percentage of drywall dust and other ash in that plume? Or does it all have to be concrete from the core to work for you? Just what sort of energy would you suppose has been released at this point? Not an inconsiderable amount to be sure.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonAnd what answer? You attempted to shoot me down and failed. "not much energy"...you evidently know nothing about the collapses.

Try taking it in context. I was talking about the relative amount of energy that would be required to crush and/or expel drywall and other ash. In case you'd forgotten what I wrote as opposed to what you want to suggest....

Originally posted by FitzgibbonWhat? You never heard of drywall? You think the interior was wide-open steel and concrete? As for the energy to pulverise it (not that much energy would be required) has everyone forgotten high school physics and the potential energy imparted to everything lifted up to the various heights over the years?

BTW, in case you didn't understand, "it" in my statement referred to drywall. As for the concrete, notice that the top of the tower is canted. That suggests partial not total failure. Once that area gave, the load would've briefly shifted to the remaining part of the core before it too gave way, releasing the potential energy stored in the matter of the tower stories above it.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonThe amount of energy to pulverize concrete into micron fine powder at such high speed and in such amounts needs one very intense source of energy. Conventional explosives nor a gravity driven "pancake" (lol) collapse can not provide such energy.

You were able to isolate the matter extruding from the building here and determine that it was micron-sized? How about a link to your research? As for the rest of your paragraph, how about some links there to some reputable research?

Review the commonly (or not) available vision, still and video of the collapse...

Stevie Wonder could see sublimation and creation of small micron scale debris being created as the towers went down...

It aint brain science nor rocket surgery



[edit on 7-5-2007 by Rilence]

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Close but not that close to the beginning that there wouldn't have been a large energy transfer to lower floors. And are you suggesting there isn't a healthy (or unhealthy as you prefer) percentage of drywall dust and other ash in that plume? Or does it all have to be concrete from the core to work for you? Just what sort of energy would you suppose has been released at this point? Not an inconsiderable amount to be sure.

Yes i am suggesting that, and no, its not all from the core. There was a large amount of concrete used for every floor of the towers;

"The floors consisted of 4 inch (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors" - Wiki

At the very beginning of the collapse, when only 3 or so floors worth had "pancaked" together, the amount of dust outside the towers is significant already. How do you explain all that dust being created so fast, and in such large amounts.

Watch any building demolition, and you see fine white dust being produced by explosives high up in the buildings, and THICK GREY smoke from the bases of the buildings when a significant number of floors have come together forcing out already pulverized concrete!

What im saying is, there should not be this amount of dust when only a few floors have come together, especially seeing as explosive action is NOT part of the official story!

Try taking it in context. I was talking about the relative amount of energy that would be required to crush and/or expel drywall and other ash. In case you'd forgotten what I wrote as opposed to what you want to suggest....

Your just trying to blag that all this dust is just naturally occuring from pancaking floors.. -_-

BTW, in case you didn't understand, "it" in my statement referred to drywall. As for the concrete, notice that the top of the tower is canted. That suggests partial not total failure. Once that area gave, the load would've briefly shifted to the remaining part of the core before it too gave way, releasing the potential energy stored in the matter of the tower stories above it.

Releasing what energy? Concrete doesn't pulverize itself, and then go on to leave a debry pile much smaller than it should have done! You smash concrete together and it crumbles, but doesnt all turn into micron fine dust, only a very small percentage does.

Yet the dust clouds behaved as pyroclastic flow clouds showing just how much pulverized concrete was created. I'll wait for you to research pyroclastic flows, then you can get back to me...drywall dust would not create such a thing.

You were able to isolate the matter extruding from the building here and determine that it was micron-sized? How about a link to your research? As for the rest of your paragraph, how about some links there to some reputable research?

Google is your friend, and so is the search facility at the top right of this page! Im not going to waste my time proving you wrong, why should i care whether you know the truth or not?

www.youtube.com...

Look how the same type of dust we saw coming out of the twin towers is seen at the base of this tower, hence the pulverized concrete.

And here, a cooling tower, made solely of concrete..

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 7-5-2007 by shrunkensimon]

Aerial view of trojan cooling tower implosion
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 7-5-2007 by shrunkensimon]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
At the very beginning of the collapse, when only 3 or so floors worth had "pancaked" together, the amount of dust outside the towers is significant already. How do you explain all that dust being created so fast, and in such large amounts.

What part of drywall and ash (ash being usually associated with unburnable remainder of a fire) didn't register?

Originally posted by shrunkensimonWatch any building demolition, and you see fine white dust being produced by explosives high up in the buildings, and THICK GREY smoke from the bases of the buildings when a significant number of floors have come together forcing out already pulverized concrete!

Nice try but there aren't any "explosives high up in the buildings" because the whole point of controlled demolition is to use the force of gravity to do all the work. And notice the "THICK GREY smoke" as well as the lighter grey smoke below it. By your description alone, there's clearly "a significant number of floors have come together forcing out already pulverized concrete" (and other detritus).

Originally posted by shrunkensimonWhat im saying is, there should not be this amount of dust when only a few floors have come together, especially seeing as explosive action is NOT part of the official story!

Because why? Is there not a significant amount of debris that's been burning in those floors which physics suggests would be looking for the path of least resistance (out the windows rather than straight down)? Either you have a controlled demolition-type explosion which typically doesn't create as much dust and debris as is clearly seen coming from the building at such a relatively early stage of the collapse or you have a huge explosion which creates a lot of noise and ejects a ton of debris. Which is it you're pulling for? Pick one but stick with it.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by FitzgibbonTry taking it in context. I was talking about the relative amount of energy that would be required to crush and/or expel drywall and other ash. In case you'd forgotten what I wrote as opposed to what you want to suggest....

Your just trying to blag that all this dust is just naturally occuring from pancaking floors.. -_-

No, I keep pointing out that you seem to be stubbornly avoiding acknowledging a point from high school physics about the potential energy inherent in any tall building. The ash and dust includes desks, plants, drywall, bits of people, airliner, etc. It isn't all just concrete. Is that clear enough for you?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by FitzgibbonBTW, in case you didn't understand, "it" in my statement referred to drywall. As for the concrete, notice that the top of the tower is canted. That suggests partial not total failure. Once that area gave, the load would've briefly shifted to the remaining part of the core before it too gave way, releasing the potential energy stored in the matter of the tower stories above it.

Releasing what energy? Concrete doesn't pulverize itself, and then go on to leave a debry pile much smaller than it should have done! You smash concrete together and it crumbles, but doesnt all turn into micron fine dust, only a very small percentage does.

Try reading this page if you really can't get your head around the oft-repeated phrase "potential energy"

The building and all its contents have potential energy by virtue of being where they are.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonYet the dust clouds behaved as pyroclastic flow clouds showing just how much pulverized concrete was created. I'll wait for you to research pyroclastic flows, then you can get back to me...drywall dust would not create such a thing.

How about you demonstrate why drywall and ash "would not create such a thing"? Because you're truly pulling that one out of your nether regions

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Originally posted by FitzgibbonYou were able to isolate the matter extruding from the building here and determine that it was micron-sized? How about a link to your research? As for the rest of your paragraph, how about some links there to some reputable research?

Google is your friend, and so is the search facility at the top right of this page! Im not going to waste my time proving you wrong, why should i care whether you know the truth or not?

You're the one making the presumption. I'm calling you on it. It isn't up to me to prove your case for you, now is it? If you're not going to back up your 'proof', at least be man enough to walk away from it and admit as much.

Can we keep to the thread please, as i said, im not here to prove you wrong, i don't care what you say, but this thread is about nukes bringing the towers down...if you want to claim it was a gravity driven collapse, go to the correct thread!

And yes they do put explosives high up in the buildings (not all, depends on building), to ensure that the building still collapses inwards. If you blow out only the base, and the building is tall, it will topple..you need to brake it up in segments to ensure a collapse within a certain radius. Again, you've proven yourself to be a debunker throwing hot air.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Can we keep to the thread please, as i said, im not here to prove you wrong, i don't care what you say, but this thread is about nukes bringing the towers down...if you want to claim it was a gravity driven collapse, go to the correct thread!

And yes they do put explosives high up in the buildings (not all, depends on building), to ensure that the building still collapses inwards. If you blow out only the base, and the building is tall, it will topple..you need to brake it up in segments to ensure a collapse within a certain radius. Again, you've proven yourself to be a debunker throwing hot air.

Oh, I see! I addressed the question you posited here:

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Theres also the matter of the collapse.. massive amounts of dust shot out the impact zone as the building started to fall, literally within 1-2 seconds.. where is all this dust coming from? And where is all the energy coming from to pulverize it so fast?

What? You never heard of drywall? You think the interior was wide-open steel and concrete? As for the energy to pulverise it (not that much energy would be required) has everyone forgotten high school physics and the potential energy imparted to everything lifted up to the various heights over the years?

And somehow I'm hijacking the thread? I've pointed out an explanation that's a damn-sight more likely than built-in demolition charges and suitcase nukes and you're whining about me not talking about nukes and demo charges! And your response about charges being placed on the upper floors, well let's see. If they were placed on the outside perimeter of the building and detonated first, I believe that that would have the building collapsing well outside the footprint of the building. And, for that matter, why give a damn if the WTC coming down took out even more buildings? Wouldn't that be even better from that standpoint? IIRC, controlled demolition charges are placed from the centre out to keep the falling building within (or as close to it as possible) within its footprint). And the structure falls straight down; it doesn't shift to one side as happened in the picture you linked to.

See, you can't even read my posts properly. If you had, you would have realised that when i was talking about explosives high up, i was referring to "if you watch any demolition video", not the twin towers.

I was using comparisons for the DUST, not for the way the towers were demolished. Your trying to defeat me on an argument you've created, not one that i have.

Sorry, but the tower collapses are not "high school physics". Building demolition is a fine art. And the simple observation you can determine from the videos is that the towers literally turn too dust, as stated by a firefighter from 9.11;

www.youtube.com...

To demolish the towers would require either a) tonnes of explosives, wiring, and detonators b) a few placed charges, and a micronuke in the basement.

As for the collapse being due to fire, that is SO wrong, and proven, that it just makes me laugh that people cling on to it so much;

www.rumormillnews.com...

"Those Who Believe Government's 911 Story are In Denial"

So which are you talking about then? Dust, or the collapse?

I think what started all of this was the claim that the "spires" turned to "dust", which is false.

No, they didn't turn to dust, but they were giving off sublimated steel vapour. You should be asking how spires managed to stay upright in both towers given that the whole official story is a PANCAKE collapse, which would imply that everything got brought down in one go...yet, parts of the core remainded standing even after the outside walls and floor spaces had been pulverized.

Can you better explain "sublimated steel vapour", and maybe provide some examples?

Who said I'm an adherant to the OV?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
See, you can't even read my posts properly. If you had, you would have realised that when i was talking about explosives high up, i was referring to "if you watch any demolition video", not the twin towers.

Yet you can't possibly fathom that the weakened structure could fall just by force of gravity? Who's in denial here?

Originally posted by shrunkensimonI was using comparisons for the DUST, not for the way the towers were demolished. Your trying to defeat me on an argument you've created, not one that i have.

This is what you said:

Originally posted by shrunkensimonWhat im saying is, there should not be this amount of dust when only a few floors have come together, especially seeing as explosive action is NOT part of the official story!

To which I pointed out that there's a damn-sight more involved there than just concrete and which you still do not accept that there could be anything of consequence mixed in there and so there's some sort of plot or conspiracy.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonSorry, but the tower collapses are not "high school physics". Building demolition is a fine art. And the simple observation you can determine from the videos is that the towers literally turn too dust, as stated by a firefighter from 9.11;

You really just don't get it do you? How is it that controlled demolition works? BY USING THE BUILDING'S OWN POTENTIAL ENERGY AGAINST IT!!!! GEDDIT???? THAT is what I mean by high school physics!!! Sheesh!

Originally posted by shrunkensimonTo demolish the towers would require either a) tonnes of explosives, wiring, and detonators b) a few placed charges, and a micronuke in the basement.

Remember this?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by shrunkensimonTheres also the matter of the collapse.. massive amounts of dust shot out the impact zone as the building started to fall, literally within 1-2 seconds.. where is all this dust coming from? And where is all the energy coming from to pulverize it so fast?

What? You never heard of drywall? You think the interior was wide-open steel and concrete? As for the energy to pulverise it (not that much energy would be required) has everyone forgotten high school physics and the potential energy imparted to everything lifted up to the various heights over the years?

There's massive amounts of potential energy stored within every atom of the building. THERE'S your energy source!

If you honestly believe any kind of nuke was used, how about demonstrating how it is that the force of any blast was directed in such as manner as not to wipe everyone and everything at street level out. Link to something credible and not some argument you're pulling out your butt. Please, just this once.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonAs for the collapse being due to fire, that is SO wrong, and proven, that it just makes me laugh that people cling on to it so much;

www.rumormillnews.com...

"Those Who Believe Government's 911 Story are In Denial"

And nukes and controlled demolition are just SO much more believalbe.

www.youtube.com...

Taken right after the collapses. Again, the video evidence is all you need.

Mate, why do you care? I already told you i couldn't give a damn what you want to believe, i really don't, so why are you persisting? This thread is about nukes bringing the towers down, not a gravity collapse, so DEAL WITH IT.

Originally posted by shrunkensimonTaken right after the collapses. Again, the video evidence is all you need.

And that addresses anything I raised exactly how?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
www.youtube.com...

Taken right after the collapses. Again, the video evidence is all you need.

Where is the example of "sublimated steel vapour"?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Mate, why do you care? I already told you i couldn't give a damn what you want to believe, i really don't, so why are you persisting? This thread is about nukes bringing the towers down, not a gravity collapse, so DEAL WITH IT.

Because bullshytte's still bullshytte no matter how closely cherished a belief of yours it is. Somebody says little green men brought it down and you expect someone with a brain to 'uh huh! Thems little green men's what dunnit. Uh huh!?

I'm pointing out something you don't want to believe. I'm sorry for you that way. But the Earth isn't going to be flat because someone wants to believe it to be that way. Same mindset at play here.

Don't take my word for all of what i've said, listen to people who were at ground zero, people who actually helped build the towers;

www.youtube.com...

"As time went by, i realised that everything had just been pulverized"..

There's a vast difference between "pulverized" and "sublimated":

sublimed, sublimated
passing or having passed from the solid to the gaseous state (or vice versa) without becoming liquid
www.wordreference.com...

powdered, powdery, pulverized, pulverised, small-grained, fine-grained
consisting of fine particles; "powdered cellulose"; "powdery snow"; "pulverized sugar is prepared from granulated sugar by grinding"
www.wordreference.com...

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon Yet you can't possibly fathom that the weakened structure could fall just by force of gravity? Who's in denial here?
There's massive amounts of potential energy stored within every atom of the building. THERE'S your energy source!
And nukes and controlled demolition are just SO much more believalbe.

Dear Fitzgibbon:

I propose making a wager here. PepeLapew’s inspired me. I hereby officially bet you, dearest Fitzgibbon, $500,000 (or lesser amount of your choosing) that a chunk of concrete, regardless of size, will not entirely break into chunks smaller than, oh let’s say 1/16” diameter — when dropped squarely from an altitude of 1,400 ft. I’m quite certain the chunks will be way bigger than that (more likely quarter inch diameter or larger) but I’m not taking any chances. Besides, 1/16” is still huge compared to what we saw at the WTC’s. There the particles were 1/1000” or smaller when they wafted across lower Manhattan. But I’m trying to lure someone into taking the challenge — I could use the cash. We can place our monies into escrow accounts under the auspices of arbitrators chosen by me and you.

Of course pictures and film show the twin towers turned to dust in mid air BEFORE they hit anything (other than high-energy neutrons, that is). But I’m shooting myself in the foot here by bringing that up. I really, really want this bet to happen. You appear to be in the military, Fitzgibbon. So perhaps you can activate your contacts and get us a helicopter so that we can make this ‘test’ happen.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods