WMD Used To Destroy WTC Towers - Please Review

I am the owner and researcher of wmdatthewtc.com...

It is currently in draft form (I will probably add a bit more content, and the site will have a new design soon) and is currently being reviewed by Scholars for 9/11 Truth (Jim Fetzer's group.)

I haven't submitted it to be reviewed by Steven Jones or his group because I don't think they will take me seriously.

I am asking for review by the members of AboveTopSecret any of course anyone else that wants to.

I welcome criticism and of course anything you think I should added to the website or researched, It would be great to hear any feedback.

PLEASE READ the FAQ section of my website:
wmdatthewtc.com...

No he hasn't debunked this theory, because the theory I am presenting has not been seen before...

www.thepriceofliberty.org...

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae


PLEASE READ the FAQ section of my website:
wmdatthewtc.com...

Excellent website, I think its pretty much a fact WMD were used, some type of nuclear weapon indeed. The Strontium And Barium information you provide is rather blatent! Excellent job, i hadn't seen this peice of info presented before. I also arrived at the same conclusion through much research and investigation and I think others will too. Stay frosty.

@atomMan I meant to say in the way that I had presented it.


I am awaiting anyones comments.

You'd be just as well off to say that Godzilla rumbled through and knocked the towers down. That would be just as believable.

This was not a nuclear explosion.

This was not a nuclear explosion.

You say with out providing any reasons?

It was some sort of WMD, as I said I don't know if it was nuclear.

Originally posted by fweshcawfee
You'd be just as well off to say that Godzilla rumbled through and knocked the towers down. That would be just as believable.

This was not a nuclear explosion.

1.) WMD doesn't mean it's nuclear. Get it straight Just means a weapon that can cause mass destruction. Mass destruction doesn't mean a very large area. It just means "mass destruction". When you look at ground zero you see how small an area it is, but look at all that destruction - the buildings that collapsed and the thousands that died - in that small area.

2.) You and the other debunkers here on ATS need to take each others advice and start explaining why you came to your conclusions instead of just posting small comments like "This was not a nulcear explosion". You say that expecting everyone to just automatically take your word for it because the almighty fweshcawfee says so.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. It's also very arrogant and makes you look as if you're someone that thinks very highly of themselves and that you can't possibly be wrong and that's just plain annoying IMO.



[edit on 30-8-2007 by nightmare_david]

These new breed of nuclear weapons maybe so radical to what we have come to expect from a nuclear weapon that they could probably be barely even classed as nuclear weapons.

WMD actually has four different types of classification for weaponary.
Basically WMD is:

Biological Weapons, Chemical Weapons, Nuclear weapons and Radiological weapons.

So if WTC annihilation was caused by WMD then its going to be fall into one of those categories, and my money would be on the nuclear type. Bio, chem and rad weapons didn't do it.

I have been going over the archives just recently and noticed they were talking of WMD threats and drills taking place around new york and how they prepare for such events and they stated all of these types of categories EXCEPT nuclear weapons, but instead they nervously replac the 4th category (nuclear weapons) with a stuttered '...explosive weapons(!)'. Its either the news presenter or the FBI director. I will try and find the clip again, its a rather minor point. But i think it shows us that at least someone knew what took down those towers.

en.wikipedia.org...

Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons which can kill large numbers of human beings, animals and plants. The term covers several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and, increasingly, radiological weapons.



[edit on 30-8-2007 by Insolubrious]

Nukes tend to vaporize rather than pulverize, even if they are low-yield. They also create a massive pressure wave, which would tend to blow the building apart rather than cause it to fall to pieces and collapse on itself. You'd see the building bulging out where the blast came from - it wouldn't topple and crumble as it did.

It was a conventional CD - there is no question. All the evidence is pointing that way, and there is rather a lot of it.

Nukes also leave lots of radiation in the immediate area. You can't hide it, no matter how small the nuke. There is also a minimum quantity of fissile material required to create a bomb that works. Forcing it together into a tiny ball to increase its mass beyond the critical mass required for a chain reaction has its limits based on the size and shape of the charge around it. Make the charge too big and it simply blows the bomb apart.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 30-8-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Nukes tend to vaporize rather than pulverize, even if they are low-yield. They also create a massive pressure wave, which would tend to blow the building apart rather than cause it to fall to pieces and collapse on itself. You'd see the building bulging out where the blast came from - it wouldn't topple and crumble as it did.

Pulverise is a loose word for explaining what happened much like squib, i could attack you on that point like other forum members do but i cant be bothered. I feel molecular dissociation maybe a closer definition.



It was a conventional CD - there is no question. All the evidence is pointing that way, and there is rather a lot of it.


You maybe right, but if you could replace a few tons of explosives for a device small enough to hold in your hand or a rucksack, i think it would be a more sensible option.

Nukes also leave lots of radiation in the immediate area. You can't hide it, no matter how small the nuke. There is also a minimum quantity of fissile material required to create a bomb that works. Forcing it together into a tiny ball to increase its mass beyond the critical mass required for a chain reaction has its limits based on the size and shape of the charge around it. Make the charge too big and it simply blows the bomb apart.

Radioactive elements were present. How about elevated tritium? How about the Strontium and Barium In The WTC powder, both of which are the result of nuclear fission. Why is it in so much of the WTC Dust?

Something that isn't widely known is that radioactive substances are used as ballast on aircraft because of its density.

On 747 Freighters they use large lumps of depleted uranium in the tail. It has a density 1.7 times that of lead.

this ´theory´is used as disInfo, guys.
there´s a major suit going on right now.

dont get distracted, dont buy this guys.IMO.

greets

this ´theory´is used as disInfo, guys.
there´s a major suit going on right now.

dont get distracted, dont buy this guys.IMO.

They don't have to "buy" anything.
It put it there for review, I would like you to point out any technical errors you can find. Can you find any?

Nukes also leave lots of radiation in the immediate area. You can't hide it, no matter how small the nuke.

You obviously did NOT read my FAQ section.

It was a conventional CD - there is no question. All the evidence is pointing that way, and there is rather a lot of it.

I have never known for conventional controlled demolitions to cause dust clouds similar to that of a Pyroclastic Flow:
wmdatthewtc.com...

[edit on 31-8-2007 by aelphaeis_mangarae]

a mini nuke or whatever, would have thrown out much more structure for sure.
you know, such an explosion then is not controlable as it is ignited.
but whatever, it didn´t look that way anyway.

what kind of microwave or radiation weapon could have been used, what do you think?
what can cause massive steel and concrete to pulverise?

This dust also included the contents of the WTC Towers such as Computers, Office Furniture and over 1000 people (that completely disappeared.) The amount of energy needed to do this would be multiple times the possibly energy of both Towers collapsing due to structural failure and gravity.

What is the (amount of) force required to cause this and what would the force have been from collapse alone?

Well considering I was 600 feet away, outdoors, when the first tower collasped and I have not died, mutated, been blinded, lost my hair, etc., I know no nuclear weapon was used.

For all those here which complain how the buildings collapsed why don't you show how you think the building should collapsed. Some of you here can make animations, show the debris falling and debris cloud structure.

Show the 'deniers' how the towers should of fell if it happened 'naturally'.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by ferretman2]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
On 747 Freighters they use large lumps of depleted uranium in the tail. It has a density 1.7 times that of lead.

I thought Boeing said themselves that they didn't put those in 767s? I've heard they were in 747s before, but not 767s. I heard the same excuse was used at Ground Zero when radiation was detected at some point not long after the collapses, too. So if uranium/etc. isn't in 767s, then that's a bunk excuse for there being radiation there.

Originally posted by ferretman2
Well considering I was 600 feet away, outdoors, when the first tower collapsed and I have not died, mutated, been blinded, lost my hair, etc., I know no nuclear weapon was used
[edit on 31-8-2007 by ferretman2]

Your location doesn't necessarily give you a better understanding of what happened, especially if your the average joe on the street. In some cases it can actually worsen your perspective. That comment you made also just goes to show you haven't read a single thing Chris posted. How about taking a look at it and giving it a proper read this time, these common questions arising have been addressed already in the FAQ (frequently asked questions).

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Something that isn't widely known is that radioactive substances are used as ballast on aircraft because of its density.

On 747 Freighters they use large lumps of depleted uranium in the tail. It has a density 1.7 times that of lead.

There was an e-mail about radiation being at WTC and the Pentagon but they blamed the Depleted Uranium.

Problem is they stoped using Depleted Uranium with the the 747s. The 757 and 767 use Tungsten for ballast.

For all those here which complain how the buildings collapsed why don't you show how you think the building should collapsed. Some of you here can make animations, show the debris falling and debris cloud structure.

Show the 'deniers' how the towers should of fell if it happened 'naturally'.

the problem is the burden of proof isnt on CT'rs, its on the government. The invaded afghanistan over the attacks and then failed to prove the 'story' behind the invasion.

every conspiracy theory can be point blank wrong and it doesent matter. if the official story is bunk it means we fraudulently entered a war.

you prove it. so far NO ONE HAS!