WTC Nuclear Demolition - New Video

Originally posted by mad scientist
There was no ionising radiation found, which is associated with fusion.

The video convinces people who have little or no knowledge of nuclwear weapons physics etc etc. There are many threads about this.

The main pont which is claimed is somehow the "micro-nuke" had it's balst directed upwards into the building somehow, without breaching the walls at ground level. Completely ridiculous. Any physiacist will tell you that it isn't possible to direct teh balst of a nuclear weapon.

There are also survivors still alive who would have been directly within that flux (if there was one) and they weren't vaporized. The level of tritium found was adequately accounted for in ordinary things from the plane and the building like watches, luminous gunsights, betalight exit signs etc.
What's being proposed is that a nuclear blast (or particle flux) passed through ~1000' of steel and concrete before it did any visible damage.

Conclusion: no nukes

Originally posted by mad scientist
[The main pont which is claimed is somehow the "micro-nuke" had it's balst directed upwards into the building somehow, without breaching the walls at ground level. Completely ridiculous. Any physiacist will tell you that it isn't possible to direct the balst of a nuclear weapon.

Well, I for one don't see it happening. There is a massive amount of electromagnetic energy released in a nuclear explosion, in visible and IR spectra, so a part of the structure was bound to be evaporated in the first millisecond. We didn't see any of that.

I think a hologram that looked like AA 175 deposited a micro nuke at the point of impact via the Missile Pod that was on remote control.

Its a good thing the Air Born Laser didnt set it off.

The holograms machines were used to make the building look like a natural collapse (which it was) and to fool tv camera as they faked all their images through a blue screen and Computer animation.

Oh goodie, I can see that this crime is just about solved after 6 years.

But im glad things worked out. There hasnt been a terror attack since Bush pulled up his pants and the economy is doing well. Almost at par with the Canadian dollar. The oil prices are fair and the cruel dictator of iraq had no chance to deploy his mushroom clouds on beautiful U.s Soils.


[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by IvanZana]

Originally posted by IvanZana
The holograms machines were used to make the building look like a natural collapse (which it was) and to fool tv camera as they faked all their images through a blue screen and Computer animation.

I posit that the WTC towers did not exist in the firstplace and were just holographic projections. Ergo, there was nothing to demolish.

I was in New York this New Years and the WTC are still there.

Weve been duped by tv again.

It a new show, like the Truman show, but all the worlds a stage.

The longest running, most exspensive series ever.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I posit that the WTC towers did not exist in the firstplace and were just holographic projections. Ergo, there was nothing to demolish.

I don't think you can claim copyright on that one - I'm fairly sure I've seen the 'no buildings' theory somewhere else previously.

Also, i'm curious can anyone who believes in these micrnukes explain how they operate ? Obviously according to the theory they didn't contain any U233/235 or Pu239/240, as traces would have easily been detected. So how exactly was a fusion reaction ignighted ?

Originally posted by mad scientist
The main pont which is claimed is somehow the "micro-nuke" had it's balst directed upwards into the building somehow, without breaching the walls at ground level. Completely ridiculous. Any physiacist will tell you that it isn't possible to direct teh balst of a nuclear weapon.

On the contrary the second video makes no such claim that the micro nuke(s) were 'directed'.

In fact I would speculate that there were several of these ultra low yield devices planted every 25-30 floors or so. Anywhere from 2-8 devices per tower and a shed load of c4 and thermite to weaken and cut up the internal framework before the final detonation phase took place.

I think the original perps were probably shocked from the results of the 1993 WTC bombing failure and how damn tough these towers were. Look what happened then, whatever bomb they detonated in the basement barely damaged these things relative to the annihilating force tearing up the towers in the 2001 bombing. I am sure whoever carried out 93 bombing gained valueable experience from it and would have a good idea of how much extra explosive energy would be required to bring them down. The jump in relative explosive energy from 93 to 01 scenario is tremendous. These buildings were virtually reduced to powder from the top down!

Are you familiar with ballotechnics?

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 2-1-2008 by Insolubrious]

Originally posted by Insolubrious
In fact I would speculate that there were several of these ultra low yield devices planted every 25-30 floors or so. Anywhere from 2-8 devices per tower and a shed load of c4 and thermite to weaken and cut up the internal framework before the final detonation phase took place.

Oh I see. The plot thickens! No, in addition to a nuke hidden somewhere, we all of a sudden need a whole dozen of nukes in each building, in addition to tons of conventional explosives and milk and cookies places on each floor in order to distract people from all this going on.

I think the original perps were probably shocked from the results of the 1993 WTC bombing failure and how damn tough these towers were. Look what happened then, whatever bomb they detonated in the basement barely damaged these things relative to the annihilating force tearing up the towers in the 2001 bombing.

The "annihilating force" in question is called gravity. It is indeed quite powerful, considering the humongous amount of potential energy effectively stored in the towers due to their mass.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
considering the humongous amount of potential energy effectively stored in the towers due to their mass.

How does micron sized particles of concrete have humongous amounts of mass?

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Are you familiar with ballotechnics?

The elusive 'red mercury' ?

The trouble with CD techniques is there is no obvious sign of explosion(s) - not on a scale sufficient to do the damage claimed. There would be no question of it whatsoever if explosives were used (conventional or nuclear).

If you want compartmentalised conspiracies capable of indefinite concealment it certainly wouldn't extend to a public display of nukes or anything else in way of large bombs.

Originally posted by Griff
How does micron sized particles of concrete have humongous amounts of mass?

The Sahara desert is made of tiny sand particles, but you wouldn't claim that it doesn't weigh much, will you?

Besides... The ejected material in the 9/11 collapse was a fraction of what really fell down.

If you ever had to hammer on cement/concrete/brick wall, you'd notice how dusty things get in no time...

The unpresidented 36 Hour "Power Down" notice issued by Port Authorities set for the 8th and 9th of September, 2001 gave about three weeks prior, and called for the evacuation of the upper floors. It seems conveniently coincidental, along side other suspicions.


"Human kind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it! Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect!"

Chief Seattle

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The Sahara desert is made of tiny sand particles, but you wouldn't claim that it doesn't weigh much, will you?

Yes, but in describing it's potential energy, do you add all the loose grains of sand or is it calculated from the grains of sand itself?

Besides... The ejected material in the 9/11 collapse was a fraction of what really fell down.

According to the official reports, close to 80% of the mass was ejected. How is that a fraction of what was falling straight down?

If you ever had to hammer on cement/concrete/brick wall, you'd notice how dusty things get in no time...

And how much energy is used up in doing so?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The Sahara desert is made of tiny sand particles, but you wouldn't claim that it doesn't weigh much, will you?

Yes, but in describing it's potential energy, do you add all the loose grains of sand or is it calculated from the grains of sand itself?

You lost me here. There is sand and its mass. What else?

Besides... The ejected material in the 9/11 collapse was a fraction of what really fell down.

According to the official reports, close to 80% of the mass was ejected. How is that a fraction of what was falling straight down?

I didn't know of that number, thanks. Well, so what. It was ejected sideways, but the work was still being done on the structural elements. I saw the collapse myself.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Fires are irrelevant, because its already been established that theres no way the fires could have made the building fail. If you still believe fires did make the steel fail, you need to reexamine the data. Even NIST said that there was a low probability that fires caused the collapses..

Check your facts again

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

wtc.nist.gov...



[edit on 2-1-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by Bunch]

Samuel T. Cohen (born 1921 in Brooklyn, New York) is an American physicist who is known for inventing the W70 warhead and the "enhanced neutron weapon" or neutron bomb.

In the 1990s he advocated investigation of terrorist threats like red mercury and nuclear isomers.

I would expect that if Sam were here he would say the same. Micro nukes annihilated the towers. Not gravity.

Also, does a ballotechnic have to be 'red mercury'?

Nice video. I was especially fascinated by the fast speed collapse.

It is all the "proof" I need that the official story is a lie. It is all I have ever needed...my own 2 eyes...to know this is not a "gravity driven collapse". I am amazed that anyone can look at the "collapse" of those 3 buildings and think it was the result of plane impact and fire!!!

If just one of those buildings had fallen over and not disenigrated into their own footprints...I would not be here today. You might as well say to me the sky is green!! They looked like giant sparklers burning down to the ground.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Samuel T. Cohen (born 1921 in Brooklyn, New York) is an American physicist who is known for inventing the W70 warhead and the "enhanced neutron weapon" or neutron bomb.

In the 1990s he advocated investigation of terrorist threats like red mercury and nuclear isomers.

I would expect that if Sam were here he would say the same. Micro nukes annihilated the towers. Not gravity.

Also, does a ballotechnic have to be 'red mercury'?

Ahh yes Sam Cohen the same person who claims this :

Cohen later went on to claim that 100 of these mini-nukes were in the hands of terrorists [1], and later that Saddam Hussein had taken delivery of about fifty of these devices, which he planned on using against the US forces as they approached Baghdad. Obviously the later claim turned out to be untrue.
en.wikipedia.org...

Further

The main proponent of ballotechnics as a claimed fusion initiator is Samuel Cohen, a somewhat controversial figure in the nuclear arms field who claims that the almost certainly mythical "red mercury" is in fact a powerful ballotechnic material, and that the Soviets have perfected its use and used it to create a number of softball-sized "mini-nukes".

Most are highly sceptical of these claims due to the physics involved, as it is not clear how heat could be used to trigger the implosion required. It has been recorded that Edward Teller laughed the concept off entirely.
en.wikipedia.org...

Not sure about his credibility.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by mad scientist]

reply to post by mad scientist


So again I ask, what ever happened to those firefighters that described what they did? Anyone know?

watchZEITGEISTnow