Micronuke theory question

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
If you could depend on the data - I have to wonder what the units for "molecular dissociation" are, for example.

They cite a federal source if I'm not mistaken so it shouldn't be hard to figure out, with a Google search, for example. Maybe you can look at the diagrams and give your opinion on them afterwards for us?

Wow, there's a lot of interesting stuff on that site.

Let me fish around in there a day or two to see where they're coming from and where they got the data from to begin with.

The dust thing is interesting, I sure wish we had a baseline, though. Has anyone found anything similar? So far I'm stumped.

The units are micrometers (microns), so there's an elevated amount of particles in the 0.56 micron to >0.09 micron range (extremely tiny).





Look what the guys that did the study said:

The team analyzed the particles by size in eight ranges from coarse (12 micrometers to 5 micrometers in diameter) to very fine (0.24 micrometers to 0.09 micrometers in diameter). Most of the ultrafine mode (particles less than 0.1 micrometers) was not collected.

[...]

There are no established safe limits for inhaled very fine particles. The closest reference is the U.S. EPA "PM2.5" standard, which limits the allowable mass of airborne particles in the size range 2.5 micrometers to 0 micrometers. That standard is based on health studies of typical air samples, in which very fine particles are a small fraction of the total mass.

In contrast, in the World Trade Center samples analyzed at UC Davis, the very fine particles are a large fraction of the total mass.

Also interesting:

Many different metals were found in the samples of very fine particles, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States.

delta.ucdavis.edu...

Originally posted by bsbray11
The units are micrometers (microns), so there's an elevated amount of particles in the 0.56 micron to >0.09 micron range (extremely tiny).

Look what the guys that did the study said:

The team analyzed the particles by size in eight ranges from coarse (12 micrometers to 5 micrometers in diameter) to very fine (0.24 micrometers to 0.09 micrometers in diameter). Most of the ultrafine mode (particles less than 0.1 micrometers) was not collected.

[...]

There are no established safe limits for inhaled very fine particles. The closest reference is the U.S. EPA "PM2.5" standard, which limits the allowable mass of airborne particles in the size range 2.5 micrometers to 0 micrometers. That standard is based on health studies of typical air samples, in which very fine particles are a small fraction of the total mass.

In contrast, in the World Trade Center samples analyzed at UC Davis, the very fine particles are a large fraction of the total mass.

Also interesting:

Many different metals were found in the samples of very fine particles, and some were found at the highest levels ever recorded in air in the United States.

delta.ucdavis.edu...

Both this and the site you are hotlinking from have a lot of interesting stuff.

It would be more fun to read them than to play grad student and review research papers, which I am unfortunately hamstrung with at the moment. So posts I can make off the top of my head without research are easy, reading a lot of interesting stuff I can't do at the moment. Alas.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Second, Nukes in the WTC: Why? Nukes are good for creating very large explosions from comparatively small devices, and for generating destructive levels of overpressure.
If you wanted to turn the WTC into a giant pipebomb, then by all means, put a nuke inside it.
But if you just wanted to drop the building, it would be easier to handle it like any other controlled demolition.
So although a mini nuke might not be impossible as best I can work it out, it doesn't seem like the most logical way to go.

Why nukes? Because only (fusion) nukes could have released the necessary energy amounts to explain some of the observed effects at the WTC’s. Nuclear fusion reactions release – literally -- 100,000 times more energy per any given mass of bomb material than chemical explosions. (And that would include thermobarics. No matter how spectacular, they’re still only firebombs.) Conventional explosives were obviously used too. They’re shown on plethora of pictures. But as a standalone means of destruction they would have been impractical and too noticeable.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
What if - the core was done with a gaseous thermobaric that could act something similarly. Maybe not all the core members went off and/or some of it leaked out, went down the street (most of them are heavier than air, and pool) and lit the firefighter's turnout coats as well as blowing up the engines of the cars that were running?

It wouldn't seem that all of these cars engines were running, however.
Case in point: the toasted lot


i18.photobucket.com...

It is unclear when this photo was taken, so the cars could've been moved into position of burned & unburned. But notice that even the unburned cars' windows are blown out or smashed. Why?



The toated car phenomena strikes me as the anomaly most begging of, yet most resistant to, explanation.

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/7/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by 0ivae
It wouldn't seem that all of these cars engines were running, however.
It is unclear when this photo was taken, so the cars could've been moved into position of burned & unburned. But notice that even the unburned cars' windows are blown out or smashed. Why?
The toasted car phenomena strikes me as the anomaly most begging of, yet most resistant to, explanation.

Do you mind explaining where those car parks are? I don't know the layout of NYC, so a little explanation would be useful. For all I know, those were in the path of burning wreckage from the planes, which were then covered by dust from the collapse.

Originally posted by apex
Do you mind explaining where those car parks are?

This image shows it in red:

about the cars - there is another thread discussing the anomaly by IIB. Rense have a good go at passing off the damage as being caused by EMP. Check out the article here:
www.rense.com...

why would certain vehicles have damage and not others? Why would only certain parts of them be damaged, and other areas remain pristine? The answer lies in magnetic SHIELDING. Magnetic pulses are like other electromagnetic energy, which radiates out from a source in a straight line unless they wrap around back to their source (such as a bar magnet does.) However, these magnetic pulses were not generated with a bar magnet, but by a very different means. When a magnetic field hits steel, the energy becomes trapped and barely penetrates it. By drawing lines across the tops of cars with damaged and undamaged areas, we can determine the general direction and height of the source of the pulse. Initial observations using vectors show that the nuclear device or pulse source was not underground, but higher up. This is also is supported by the standing floors at ground level after the building's collapse.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/7/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by bsbray11
This image shows it in red:

Yeah, I don't know about the toasted car park.

What I was looking at was other street shots where you see cars that look as if they were being driven or had a chance to be running at the time were the ones that burned, whilst cars next to them in traffic are totally intact.

I had heard that the car park was filled with moved cars that had been near the buildings, and that would account for the dents and obvious physical damage. There are other shots of damaged, burnt cars that were piled up with a forklift on the street outside the car park. Someone said the car park had a gas main under it that had gone off but I see what looks like grass in the gravel so I don't know if I believe that one.

My first impression of the big photo is that one or two have started to burn but that the rest have not - perhaps they caught the parked cars on fire?

[edit on 4-7-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by VicRH
about the cars - there is another thread discussing the anomaly by IIB. Rense have a good go at passing off the damage as being caused by EMP.

Yeah, but if I recall this was written by Twietmeyer, who tries to pass himself off as an engineer or physicist but is a lab tech. This is the same guy that thinks metal detectors use X-rays. He's not exactly accurate on a lot of his statements. I especially liked how he dedicated a big part of his web site once to "time shifts" which he thought he had detected by the fact that the digital clocks and VCR's in a small area were running slow, although the watches weren't. Many a pitiful theory was put forward to explain the discrepancy - but what Ted didn't know was that the clocks in VCRs use the power line for a frequency reference. The area in question had been isolated from the grid for a while.

EMP is quirky, but it's not supernatural. Ted is confusing electromagnetic waves with static magnetic fields quite a bit, they're not the same at all. Further, the wavelengths that predominate in a classic EMP are generally fairly long, mostly concentrated in HF regions where they're maybe 20-80 meters and up. They'll diffract around the edges of "shields" which Ted's being pretty creative with in his description - it won't be quite as razor straight as he seems to think.

EMP doesn't tend to melt cars. However, if it was of that amplitude, why didn't it blow out the other electronics on Manhattan, especially the firefighter's radios, the camcorders and cameras that took the pictures etc. The power distribution network would have been hard hit, because it has lines long enough to act as an efficient antenna. It didn't go out except where the lines were damaged, the power company cut the rest after. The phones weren't out. The cell towers still worked.

Even if you leave that out, what is the mechanism by which EMP is produced by a nuclear weapon? It doesn't just stream out of the bomb. It's caused by gamma and x-rays knocking the electrons off atoms, producing what are known as Compton electrons. These interact with the Earth's magnetic field and produce the pulse. To get a big pulse, you need lots of gammas.

No gammas, no EMP.

Now, what do gamma and x-rays do to people? That's right. You hear a "cha-ching" noise, their eyes turn to little x's, they fall on their backs, lilies appear in their hands and a little tombstone pops up behind their head. Then their ghost leaves their bodies in a little bathrobe and plays a harp all the way up to heaven. (Yes, I'm a 1940's Looney Tunes fan)

Did you see dead people strewn as far as the eye can see?

Nope, I didn't either.

No micronukes were used in my opinion. Radiation left would have been caught by to many people and could not have been stymied. The Leukemia and Lung Cancer is from the asbestos and other things pulverized by the BOMBS, and THERMITE. Ths whole micronuketheory seems to me to be disinformation to make anyone who mentions bombs look silly, mention bombs and they immediately jump to micronukes and the person thinks your crazy. Since no radiation readings were registered by anyone to assume they used them is not sane...

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Since no radiation readings were registered by anyone to assume they used them is not sane...

*sigh*

Theres a reason why no radiation was detected.. and it has something to do with fusion weapons. Use the search bar and locate the one of many micronuke threads here on ATS for more info.

I think its more of a leap of faith to believe that both the twin towers could be rigged top to bottom with the common demolition explosives without people noticing. Perhaps a few floors may of been done that way, but not all of them. I simply don't buy that one.

Anyone that knows anything about typical demolition procedure realises they need to work every other floor with explosives and it takes months on buildings 1/4 the size of just one of the twin towers, and it requires a large crew.

But this is exactly why the idea of a some type micro nuke or an extremely highly powerful compact explosive fits the bill so well. Since it would only require a dozen or so devices that could be easily planted out of sight (most likely on the core framework) and planted within a matter of hours by a very small crew. If such devices actually do exist it makes the whole scenario realistically plausible.

So if your into the theory that something other than the plane and fires brought down those buildings you should logically arrive at this sort of conclusion eventually, or some other type of uncommon demolition weapon/explosive. It should be on the table for serious discussion.

Its interesting what Mark Loizeaux from CDI said regarding how he would have demolished the building

www.serendipity.li...
Mark Loizeaux

"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."

Also, important is what he initially said before he changed his tune.
MARK

But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping.

Originally posted by talisman

"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."

Only that would look like a standard demolition, unlike the collapse of the WTC. Even with this magic shaped nuclear explosion, that would happen, as the core would collapse first, not what we see, the top first. All of it would collapse fairly simultaneously. Not to mention that only the top moved immediately, and the Firefighters in the WTC stairwell at the time not reporting a blast wave or heat coming from below.


[edit on 5-7-2007 by apex]

Originally posted by apex
Even with this magic shaped nuclear explosion, that would happen, as the core would collapse first, not what we see, the top first.

The core failing translates to a global failure, because the core was what was holding the entire building up.

Watch WTC1 begin collapsing carefully and you'll see that as it starts falling, the perimeter columns don't fall together, and they hit each other and stop and etc. while the antenna and everything right above the core continues dropping straight down.

Fusion reactions emit large amounts of neutron radiation - the radiation
would have been detectable for months afterwards from the neutrons
striking common metals and transmutting them into radiation substances.
During a "criticality accident" in Tokai Japan in 1999 researchers used
5 yen coins from people around the plant to measure radiation exposure
The 5 yen is made of zinc and neutrons convert zinc isotopes to
radioactive Zinc 65 with half life of 244 days and specific gamma frequency
The 1 cent or penny has since 1982 been made of zinc with copper finish
No radiation from this source has been found

Actually the effects of neutrons on metals are detectable for many years, not just months. Trouble is, no one (with clout and authority) is looking or likely ever will. And whatever renegade researchers do find anomalies will never get their message across. Remember, the news media in this country is tightly controlled. And, furthermore, humankind is a ‘herd animal’ by nature. We are biologically hardwired to follow our leaders and whatever direction the majority (of us people) happen to be moving in. Anyone who deviates from the norm tends to get outcast and shunned. That should be rather self-evident by now. Think of Ron Paul or Rosie O’Donnell.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Actually the effects of neutrons on metals are detectable for many years, not just months. Trouble is, no one (with clout and authority) is looking or likely ever will. And whatever renegade researchers do find anomalies will never get their message across. Remember, the news media in this country is tightly controlled. And, furthermore, humankind is a ‘herd animal’ by nature. We are biologically hardwired to follow our leaders and whatever direction the majority (of us people) happen to be moving in. Anyone who deviates from the norm tends to get outcast and shunned. That should be rather self-evident by now. Think of Ron Paul or Rosie O’Donnell.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

heh, so true. I think you summed up that one pretty good WITW. Everything we are told by the media is cropped, censored, re-arranged and watered down for public consumption and the mass majority will blindly swallow it hook line and sinker as the definitive and only answer.