4th Generation MicroNukes Used on WTC1,2 and 7

Fritz, tell me how virtually all of the concrete, some 90% plus, was pulzerized into dust, yet pieces of paper remained fully intact

An expression comes to mind: "If you can't blind them with science, baffle them with ..."

The core columns did NOT turn to dust - when they collapsed, the dust was left behind creating the impression of turning to dust, which they did not do.

I invite you to cover your car in flour, and drive off without any of the flour flying off the car.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Jeepers guys thanks for debating every little piece of evidence like semantics of drywall dust versus pulverised concrete etc etc. Roughly 10 more posts and we will be in the top 5 of the Hot Threads!

If there are any government debunkers here, thanks for making the story even bigger with nonsensical arguments like nukes cannot be smaller than 10kt etc etc - its akin to the Jane Standley BBC Pre-Release collapse footage - they only confirmed it by trying to censor it off the internet.

I'm sure theres complete neocon fascist types sitting in a room somewhere all frustrated and feeling threatened by the power of the freedom of speech that the internet is providing anyone who cares to write. There probably figuring out how to kill the internet when they launch their next false flag event...

Where did i say that the core columns turned to dust? I said the concrete was turned to dust, and that some steel obviously was undergoing sublimation, not all of it. This is a video clearly showing a massive portion of the core still standing within the mushroom cloud; www.youtube.com...

Which then goes on to collapse, having been standing for about 10 seconds AFTER the rest of the floors and outer wall had collapsed.

One of the things I find in this thread, is everything keeps getting pushed to absolutes, like ALL the concrete was pulverized, and ALL the steel was sublimated, and NO thermate is what is trying to be argued, which is NOT the case at all.

The basic premise the purpose of the thread is to basically explore a very reasoned claim that thermate ALONE was not the single culprit causing the following observed symptons.

a. Acres of heated rubble, some of it molten, a lot of it at 1500F
b. Large number of cars burning at a distance, many with melted engine blocks, or melted quarter panels with the backs of the car untouched (what about the gas tanks!!)
c. Buses melted at 200 yards away, Thermate is HEAVY it would NOT float on the air over 200 yards, it only leaves two - basically one conclusion, that the pyroclastic flow of dust and light debris was HOTTER than the 650 Celcius to melt the aluminum hull (pretty unlikely really - it would be cooler after traveling through that much air) or - a gamma X/ray bust melted the bus as it would rapidly heat large solid objects (like a buses engine block).
d. Video showing the pillars sublimating into dust, We are talking about pillars that are literally HT high tension steel some of it 4 inches thick.
e. The fact that the main pillars at the core (which were even thicker 8" and the size of a flea market table ground themselves LOWER than the outer shell.
f. At the 1/2 way point of the demolition the towers 'shed' off of themselves, This truly is the largest smoking gun because if the buildings had shed the top half off of themselves there was no weight left to hammer down the incredibly strong columns.

To just realize HOW strong those columns were when the 680kg Urea Nitrate bomb was detonated in the WTC in 1993, it made a 30m crater - here is the picture of it, note the size of the car in the bottom, and additionally the fact that there is hardly even a scratch in the support columns...




One final point - thermate liquifies metal, the Urea Nitrate bomb used in 1993 packed incredible punch and did NOT sublimate the pillars, in fact it hardly even touched them - so what would cause the pillars to turn to powder....


[edit on 7-5-2007 by XR500Final]

If you're referring to the core column "spires", they didn't turn into powder or "sublimate" (from a solid into a gas without first becoming a liquid).

I hope your theory isn't resting on the spires tuning to dust.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

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.

If the only force acting on the concrete were gravitational acceleration and the concrete were to smash into an equal if not larger slab of similar concrete, I think it's safe to say that there'd be quite a bit of material smashed into dust (that is to say, a damn-sight smaller than 1/16"). If it were to smash into say....ashphalt, then you might be right as the ashphalt would, to a certain extent, cushion the deceleration.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_WoodsOf 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).

Of course, we're not discussing just what (at the stage you're referring to) the components of the 'dust' were made up of although the shorthand here seems to be that it's all concrete with no allowance made for any other non-structural elements within the WTC ie drywall, office furnishings, cremated human remains, airplane parts, etc.

As I've repeatedly pointed out since delving into this thread, nobody's taking into account the energy being expended by the top floors of the WTC beginning their descent and the resistance of the floors below to that energy before those floors succumbed themselves and imparted their potential energy to the floor below and so on and so on. There's a massive amount of energy stored within everything whether it's normally combustible or not that, once a certain level of energy is imparted to it, I should think starts coming apart on an atomic level (I'd posit). But there's no need to resort to mini-nukes or any of the other more bizarre rationales as an explanation for what transpired.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_WoodsYou 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.

If I had Sharon Stone as my avatar, would you assume I'm a celebrity?

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
If you're referring to the core column "spires", they didn't turn into powder or "sublimate" (from a solid into a gas without first becoming a liquid).

I hope your theory isn't resting on the spires tuning to dust.

The "spire" was the outside wall/corner of the building, NOT the core. The video i posted clearly shows a large portion of the core still standing, then collapsing, only after the rest of the building has done so.

The core columns had been superheated, and were giving off sublimated steel, but that doesn't mean 100% of its mass needs to be converted, and all in one go.

As I understand it the Spire was part of the "CORE" of the North Tower that remained standing after the initial collapse.

While it does look like it is evaporating or whatever, it is falling and leaving a dust trail behind creating the illusion of becoming dust.

Shift core column / spires / sublimation / etc over to this new thread that puts it to rest:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
This thread has been derailed by that absurd claim long enough.


[edit on 8-5-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The "spire" was the outside wall/corner of the building, NOT the core.

Sorry, but you're looking at large box columns with beams bracing them evenly at the floors.


That's the core, not the perimeter.

Aye, i stand corrected. I hadnt come across that photo (and footage on youtube) showing such a clear view. Id only seen the footage of the spire from far away. definatly the core, my bad.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Fritz, tell me how virtually all of the concrete, some 90% plus, was pulzerized into dust, yet pieces of paper remained fully intact

Well I guess if 10% of the concrete can survive, can you suggest why 10% of the paper wouldn't?

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon There's massive amounts of potential energy stored within every atom of the building. THERE'S your energy source! There's a massive amount of energy stored within everything whether it's normally combustible or not that, once a certain level of energy is imparted to it, I should think starts coming apart on an atomic level (I'd posit).

Dear Fitzgibbon:

You are so right. There is a massive amount of energy stored within everything. One gram of any substance is the energy equivalent of 700,000 gallons of gasoline. This, according to E=mc2. Trouble is converting that mass into energy is the tricky thing. And we know how that’s done. Dropping something isn’t going to cut it.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/9/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Dear Fitzgibbon:

You are so right. There is a massive amount of energy stored within everything. One gram of any substance is the energy equivalent of 700,000 gallons of gasoline. This, according to E=mc2. Trouble is converting that mass into energy is the tricky thing. And we know how that’s done. Dropping something isn’t going to cut it.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 5/9/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Actually, dropping will indeed cut it because you have the momentum of the upper body in motion in conflict with the inertia of the lower body and where they physically meet, the conflict of those two energies is going to create massive heat through resistance, thereby breaking down the integrity of the concrete.

As I've pointed out before, this is all straight high school Newtonian physics and you don't have to start bandying about nuclear to reasonably explain what happened (much as I'm sure it'd be preferable to some of the posters here).

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon


Actually, dropping will indeed cut it because you have the momentum of the upper body in motion in conflict with the inertia of the lower body and where they physically meet, the conflict of those two energies is going to create massive heat through resistance, thereby breaking down the integrity of the concrete.

As I've pointed out before, this is all straight high school Newtonian physics and you don't have to start bandying about nuclear to reasonably explain what happened (much as I'm sure it'd be preferable to some of the posters here).

I do not think a conventional collapse or conventional explosives would account for the additional energy to get approx 90% of the concrete to such a small scale. There are virtually no large chunks of concrete left, all of it was pulverised. Whats more it wasn't just concrete but an alphabetic soup of metals and other materials. They even identified exotic metals from computer chips at this scale pulverised at this scale (pulverise is probably the wrong word for it, molecular dissociation is more likely an accurate description). If it was a natural collapse or even one driven by well placed conventional explosives we would still expect to find a much greater quantity of large chunks of concrete and rubble as well as office contents.




MIT Engineer Jeff King Discussing WTC Implosion.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by Insolubrious]

Eaxctly. Thats the point i was trying to make. It doesn't matter how much potential energy you have, you are not going to be able to reduce 90% of the concrete to fine powder through simply smashing it together.

"high school" physics will also tell you that all that "potential energy" is going to be spaced out over the area of floor, not concentrated in one point.

Can we please get back to the topic instead of debating whether this was a gravity driven collapse... anyone with two brain cells firing knows that they weren't just collapses, and that extra energy was provided in some form, whether that be thermate, explosives, or a fusion bomb.

In this video at 4:45 minutes, the news reporter says: Cars on fire, Cars just turned by the force of the (EXPLOSIONS)

''It was like something no one had ever seen''

Google Video Link

well, my take on this is no secret, matter of fact ive even had a moderated debate on the topic with whatukno (explosives not mini nukes) which anyone who's interested can read here h2h debate:were explosives used in the wtc buildings (id suggest everyone to read it cuz wuk made some great points for a CD as well)

however, in the spirit of open mindedness, i do have a few legit questions because i simply dont know and some of you who've really researched this may be able to answer them for me.

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

why was it JUST the cars that started on fire and not all the people standing in the general area prior to the initiation of the collapses? wouldnt anything that started the cars on fire also do damage to things that were in teh nearby buildings? becuase as i read this, its the radiation affecting certain metals etc that cased them to heat up...wouldnt we find similar metals in filing cabinets etc inside the nearby buildings? if the radiation was able to escape the metal enclosure of the tower, why would the glass etc of the other nearby buildings stop it? (last thing i read said that to stop gamma you needed nearly a foot of lead or several feet of concrete, but that was an old manual so it could easily have been incorrect)

why were'nt all of the people running away suddenly bursting into flames spontaneously?

now, i ask this in good faith as if there are answers im sure some of you have them. im quite familiar with conventional tactical nukes on a basic level (i wouldnt try to disarm one by any means) but pure fusion devices arent something i ever needed to know about so i dont.

so plz dont think im being facetious, im genuinly curious and trying to keep an open mind.

thanks

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Damocles]

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

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

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

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

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

wouldnt anything that started the cars on fire also do damage to things that were in teh nearby buildings?

Probably, but there is a gradient. The real question is if any heating or etc. from a distance would even be noticeable. Heating something even 50 degrees in one spot probably wouldn't be noticeable, and I doubt whether that would even happen.

why were'nt all of the people running away suddenly bursting into flames spontaneously?

Same reason given above. Sporadic neutrons flying through something not-so-dense wouldn't have much cause to greatly heat something, especially if you aren't dense enough to stop them.

You mention needing several feet of whatever to stop gamma radiation, and neutrons aren't inherently massively hot as far I'm aware. You'd need something dense, and neutrons still have to do work to give off heat same as anything else.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by bsbray11]