Thermate, C4, Micro Nukes Prove 911 Was and Inside/Outside Job

reply to post by EdWardMD

References and quotes for lack of evidence? OK, here's your quote: "There isn't any evidence."

You made the claims so it is up to you to provide the evidence. What you have provided so far is irrelevant. Evidence would be:
Videos of the nuclear fireball melting colums.
Craters and the explosions causing the craters.
Deaths from neutron irradiation.
Analyses of bomb-related nuclides. Note: bomb-related.

As of now, there is no evidence, just the anomalous, questionable tritium analyses and actinide background from granite and gravel in the concrete.

I expect a new record for word frequency of "liar," "BS," and "scumbag" in your response. I know you won't let me down. You should also attempt to address the above issues rather than just repeat a previous post.


[edit on 2/15/2009 by pteridine]

reply to post by pteridine


All of my claims have been referenced and quoted to you.

I prefer to get my facts from the source and cut out the lying scam BS interpretations. LIKE TRITIUM LEVELS BEING 55 X BACKGROUND = TRACES, but in reality """"the maximum amount of Tritium dispersed by hundreds of MegaTons Atomic Blasts in the 60's"""". That's the way one finds facts like...

Why do you lie and BS so much? Time after time it really gets boring showing you for a lying scammer. THEY MOST CERTAINLY WERE FOUND, AND THEY ARE ALL ELEVATED JUST AS NOTED IN THE ARTICLE AND POSTED TO YOU. BS, BS, BS, LIE, BS, LIE, SCAM, BS. You lie, BS, scam as much as this firetruckin government. Could it be? Are there members of national guard troops on this biggest board, blah, blah,... Are there religious fanatics - Constitution Party members, mormons, jh, israeli, christian war mongers, etc, etc, - on the biggest blah, blah, blah? Huge RP following here percentage wise - gotta love the sheeple. Yeah, I'd say the board is covered more than adequately in BS, lying, scamming accessories - after the fact - to murder and treason.

USGS report pubs.usgs.gov...
Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma counter (EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately 50 peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of interferences). These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial radionuclides. Liquid scintillation analyses were conducted for emissions on the total dust and smoke samples using a Packard Tri-Carb Model 2770 TR/SL (Packard Instrument, Meriden, CT). The MDA [mimimum detectable activity] for alpha radioactivity was 0.30 DPM (0.14 pCi) based on a NIST-traceable 226Ra standard (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD). When placed in the liquid scintillation fluid, the WTC samples are somewhat darker than the backgrounds and calibration standard, which may cause slight underreporting of the beta activity due to quenching and standard-to-sample efficiency bias. 2

50 RADIONUCLIDES FOUND AND THEY ARE ELEVATED even when using 50% efficiency as well as UNDERREPORTED IN COMBINATION.


One does not need to know the exact size to know what was done FROM VERIFIED REFERENCED EVIDENCE. Like saying someone that has been murdered by a bullet hasn't been murdered by a bullet unless you can tell the exact force/size of the bullet without having the bullet in hand. A straight through and through circular hole is a projectile/bullet until proven otherwise. Just like massive craters, massive heat in 6 acres of earth, 2 billion pounds of instant dust, vaporized people, impossible chlorine fueled anearobic fires, wilting spires, hiroshima cancer effects, BILLIONS OF TRITIUM UNITS and even more evidence is a NUKE until proven otherwise. All are textbook classic examples for a nuclear event - individually and in total.

DrEd

reply to post by EdWardMD


Simply repeating lying, BS etc. does not an effective agrument make. If you feel you are on such solid ground dude, then whats with the ad hom and strawman stuff? Really now If you are really an MD Id expect more than this childish banter.

Back on topic:

If you are convinced that a nuke was used, then kindly explain the lack of any real documented evidence as such.

1) No destruction beyond the immediate WTC area?
2) You keep rambling on about 'Hiroshima type effects" where please?

Nothing in pub med:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I mean we are talking 7+ years post event No? Why no massive cancer cluster in Manhattan

3) Fallout? Where?

4) Any country with DSP type satelites would have observed a double flash signature of the event if above ground or seismic activity beyond the collapse of the structure if below.

5) Lack of blast damage beyond the WTC site. Heck the overpressure alone would have burst eardrums, in Jersey eh? Even for a suitcase nuke.

6) Lack of any EMP effects anywhere


and on and on and on..... :shk:

Originally posted by Operation AJAX

Simply repeating lying, BS etc. does not an effective agrument make. If you feel you are on such solid ground dude, then whats with the ad hom and strawman stuff? Really now If you are really an MD Id expect more than this childish banter.

Back on topic:

If you are convinced that a nuke was used, then kindly explain the lack of any real documented evidence as such.

1) No destruction beyond the immediate WTC area?
2) You keep rambling on about 'Hiroshima type effects" where please?

Nothing in pub med:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I mean we are talking 7+ years post event No? Why no massive cancer cluster in Manhattan

3) Fallout? Where?

4) Any country with DSP type satelites would have observed a double flash signature of the event if above ground or seismic activity beyond the collapse of the structure if below.

5) Lack of blast damage beyond the WTC site. Heck the overpressure alone would have burst eardrums, in Jersey eh? Even for a suitcase nuke.

6) Lack of any EMP effects anywhere


and on and on and on..... :shk:

Try reading his post. Clearly you haven't. Pfft..

reply to post by Insolubrious


Insol,
Ajax is correct. Eddie's posts are often copies of his previous posts. He does not address the real issues of nuclear weapons and harps on the anomolous tritium analyses and actinide background radiation. There is much more that would be apparent had a bomb with any nuclear activity been detonated. Detonation of a nuclear weapon would be more obvious than he claims and unlike anything witnessed or recorded. Craters require a big bang or enough heat to melt earth. These energies are much greater than he claims. EMP effects would be noticeable as they would terminate communications, destroy electronic devices, and interrupt the power grid. Even the CCD's of video cams would be affected as they were bombarded with particles.
Blast waves would be noticeable; things would be knocked down over a wider radius. Immediate deaths by neutron irradiation and follow-on deaths would greatly increase the casualty count. Daughter elements would be obvious and measureable. Radiation from these would have secondary effects, including even more radiation deaths. Mass evacuations would have had to happen with the smallest event.

When we inform him of these considerations, he copies a previous rant filled with "BS," "Scam", "Scumbags," and "Lying," in no particular order, so he does not have to address things he can't explain. It appears that Ed has an interest in pumping this thread and sending people to his site to read his diatribes via references in the thread. He doesn't really want it to end even though he has no evidence, whatsoever.

ED, your severe lack of knowledge on nuclear explosions is the major Achillie's heel in your little "theory", although it should just be classified as an uneducated guess.

When you are dealing with explosives, they make a very loud, and very noticeable BOOM! Your uneducated guess that "micro-nukes" were used would be the idea that it must have been a "powerful blast" that "vaporized" steel beams and concrete. In order to have a powerful blast that vaporizes steel, it needs to be a HUGE explosion. And a HUGE explosion has a HUGE blast and a HUGE BOOM!. Now the reason why I was talking about kilotons in terms of TNT is because that is how you measure a nuclear blast. What is the point of using a nuclear device of any size if you do not want to have a large KaBOOM with it? Kilotons, megatons, gigatons, etc, all relate to the EQUIVALENT tonnage of TNT. So a 1 kiloton nuclear device = 1 thousand tons of TNT, 0.1 kilotons = 100 tons of TNT. And so on and so on. So a nuclear bomb that has a 1 kiloton yield means it explodes with the power of 1,000 tons of TNT. And 1,000 tons of TNT makes a hell of a BANG. So does a 1 kiloton nuke. Your "understanding" of nuclear bombs and TNT equivalence is BS.

What the 9/11 believers here fail to acknowledge (or choose to ignore) is the possibility that the micro-nukes used on the WTC's (including WTC7 it appears due to the existence of molten metal under that building also) were built from technology so advanced that the general public is not even aware they exist.

And 9/11 truthers also need to think more 'outside the box' and consider alternative explanations for 'false flag operations' and not those simply based on 'what we (the general public) know'.

I recall some years ago the development of the 'neutron' bomb. Here we had a weapon that could kill people but not destroy the physical surroundings. It was hailed as breakthrough in modern warfare.

So who's to say the military hasnt since developed a similar weapon - nuclear or similar - for use on the WTC's? I mean lets face it, if your going to use a nuke to carry out the crime of the century what would be the point if it could be easily traced? But imagine a nuke or similar WMD that leaves no trace of radiation. Such thinking opens up so many possibilities..

I have no doubt whatsoever WMD's were used on 9/11. And they werent planted by arabs from a cave in Afghanistan.

The only logical conclusion I can make from that is the military devised a non-detectable WMD or nuke - a concept that it quite believable considering todays advances in technology.

And if such weapons exist, why hasnt the military told you -Joe Public - about them? Answer: Why should they? Military secrets are kept to keep an edge over the enemy - whether that enemy be foreign or domestic. And some military secrets remain secret for decades. Just because you dont know about it doesnt make it not-so.

[edit on 8-3-2009 by Nonchalant]

reply to post by Nonchalant

Non,
The admonishment to "think outside the box" is most helpful in that it identifies the purveyor as having no idea of what is going on or what to do in a given situation. What you are saying, Non, is that magic occurred. Energy required to demolish the buildings was from a new device that did it and showed no measureable energy outputs. It could have been nuclear or conventional but it was so secret no one noticed. You have no theory of what it might be, just "something."
This means that you, like all the other CTer's, have no evidence of anything and would like everyone to believe what you say and "trust you" because you just know something was amiss. I must say that your theory might seem like outside the box thinking to you, but it is firmly inside the box built by all the other Cter's who also invoke magic out of desperation.

Originally posted by pteridine
Non,
The admonishment to "think outside the box" is most helpful in that it identifies the purveyor as having no idea of what is going on or what to do in a given situation.

You miss my point. What is am saying is that the arguments here for and against nukes or WMD's is all based around what we know. Judging by your response, I suspect you would like to keep it that way. But what I am saying is the answer may not be in the 'known'. It may lie outside in the area of weapons we know nothing about. Im sure even you would not try and openly deny there are weapons in existence we know nothing about. This has always been the case thoughout modern history at least. Yet you deny their existence by pointing the finger at anyone that suggests we even consider such possibilities. You cant have it both ways. So what will it be? We have secret weapons or we dont? If we do, then such a weapon may be responsible for 9/11. Lets have a think about what sort of weapon that could be - and how it could be achieved. If we dont then your argument has merit. But such a belief is beyond rational.

Originally posted by pteridineThis means that you, like all the other CTer's, have no evidence of anything and would like everyone to believe what you say and "trust you" because you just know something was amiss. I must say that your theory might seem like outside the box thinking to you, but it is firmly inside the box built by all the other Cter's who also invoke magic out of desperation.

Because you cant examine something with a microscope does that mean it doesnt exist? Think about it. Not everything can be easily explained away just because you dont see it.

And I dont see where I asked anyone to believe me in my post? I simply affirmed my belief and threw a possible explanation out there for the destruction of the WTC's that in my opinion warrants further examination. And using your own argument against yourself based on the 'evidence' the 3 towers were not brought down by planes & jet-fuel. Science doesnt support this claim, and because of that I for one will continue to 'think outside the box' and refuse to accept the excuse for 9/11 the mainstream media and government feeds the public on a daily basis.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by Nonchalant]

reply to post by Nonchalant

I didn't miss your point. You believe that something is amiss and are searching for a cause to the effect. Supersecret weapons and giant conspiracies have an interesting cachet so that is where you are searching, as there is no evidence for anything else. With such a unique event as 911, all theories of "planes couldn't do that" are based on gut feelings. Some people think the planes should have stuck in the buildings like darts and that any collapse would have been leisurely.

reply to post by Nonchalant

I didn't miss your point. You believe that something is amiss and are searching for a cause to the effect. Supersecret weapons and giant conspiracies have an interesting cachet so that is where you are searching, as there is no evidence for anything else. With such a unique event as 911, all theories of "planes couldn't do that" are based on gut feelings. Some people think the planes should have stuck in the buildings like darts and that any collapse would have been leisurely.
Secret and advanced weapons must exist. If you have a theory of what might have been used, please state it. If you don't, keep thinking outside the elusive box until you do, but please don't come up with "I don't know what it was but it was something secret and untraceable." That means you have no evidence and watch too many movies.


[edit on 3/9/2009 by pteridine]