WTC was a Nuclear Demolition - New Facts and Hard Evidence Exposing the Coverup and Censorship!!

Originally posted by 911thology

Hi to everyone. Sorry, as I have already mentioned above I have no interest in this discussion, since I do not see any genuine interest here. However, as a matter of exception, I will answer your question. The windows would be blown out if there were a kind of 'pumping in' that would create air overpressure inside the building. However, crushing wave I am talking about did not produce any 'pumping in' in this sense. It simply compressed all hard materials - steel and glass alike. So, instead of being blown out, the windows were simply pulverized into the glass dust - in the same manner as anything else. That is why I do not see any sense in this argument whatsoever.
This is the same if I ask you - could you explain the true reason of why the Moon is square?

************************************************************
Steel does not turn to dust under impulsive loadings, it deforms plastically. Shock loading the structure by deep nuclear demolition without seeing other effects, such as shock loading of the surrounding buildings, crater formation, EMP damage, and differential effects over the height of the building argues against this theory. Further, collapse from the impact area down without first seeing visible pulverization of the lower floors is inconsistent with the proposed mechanism.
From previous posts, a Granit missile striking the Pentagon at 2.5 to 4 Mach would have produced a shockwave not easily dismissed. It would have been difficult to see as it would have been travelling between four and seven times faster than the aircraft that did strike the Pentagon and Granit is only 10 meters long. The fuel load would not have provided the fuel fire that resulted and either warhead would have provided extensive high-order blast damage that was not seen.
Thank you for your square moon theory, but the moon still refuses to cooperate.

[edit on 4/10/2010 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by 911thology

...
This is the same if I ask you - could you explain the true reason of why the Moon is square?

************************************************************
Steel does not turn to dust under impulsive loadings, it deforms plastically. Shock loading the structure by deep nuclear demolition without seeing other effects, such as shock loading of the surrounding buildings, crater formation, EMP damage, and differential effects over the height of the building argues against this theory. Further, collapse from the impact area down without first seeing visible pulverization of the lower floors is inconsistent with the proposed mechanism.
From previous posts, a Granit missile striking the Pentagon at 2.5 to 4 Mach would have produced a shockwave not easily dismissed. It would have been difficult to see as it would have been travelling between four and seven times faster than the aircraft that did strike the Pentagon and Granit is only 10 meters long. The fuel load would not have provided the fuel fire that resulted and either warhead would have provided extensive high-order blast damage that was not seen.
Thank you for your square moon theory, but the moon still refuses to cooperate.

[edit on 4/10/2010 by pteridine]

Hi to everyone. To answer the questions above.
1) Steel does not turn to dust under impulsive loadings, it deforms plastically. ---------- yes, I know it very well. However it was not so on the 9/11. You can't deny that on the 9/11 steel did not 'deform plastically'. It was clearly pulverized. So does this mean that you contradict yourself? But when it comes to me I do not contradict myself. I know very well physical properties of an underground nuclear explosion. Everything around cavity left by it will be crushed to complete microscopic dust - metals and rock alike. This is my statement and I know what I state.
2)...such as shock loading of the surrounding buildings -------------------- don't even doubt that many buildings around the Twin Towers were indeed seriously damaged by subterranean shock some of them needed serious repair, but some were irreparable and had to be demolished - most notably Fiterman Hall, but not only it. Seek in Google and ye shall find.
3) EMP damage -------------------------- EMP does not exist in underground conditions. Because EMP is an electric current that is created by anormous number of fast electrons instantly flying from a hypocenter of a nuclear explosion to every direction. In underground conditions all these electrons, along with neutrons, gamma-rays and X-rays will be stopped in very short distances by surrounding rock. Since electrons can not fly really far in undergound conditions they would not create any EMP whatsoever.
4) collapse from the impact area down without first seeing visible pulverization of the lower floors is inconsistent with the proposed mechanism.----------------------------- in my opinion my explanation is perfect and accepted even by doctors of physics. If you don't like it - I can't help.
5) regarding Granit missile. As I have stated once 'sonic boom' occures only once - when object reaches speed of sound and is about to exceed it. Once it is flying at supersonic speed there is no longer sound boom - typical example - shot of a bullet from any firearm - you hear only a single 'boom' ('shot' in this case) and not multiple or continuous 'boom' ('shots'), all you hear then when the bullet flies at supersonic speed is its whine/whizz. The same is applicable to any supersonic missile. Don't argue, please. The fuel load remaining in the missile provided the very 'ball of fire' described by all Pentagon witnesses and also clearly seen on famous security camera footage 3 frames of which were recently released by FBI. You have to consider tremendous inertia of the missile. Even if exploded it will still fly further the same way.

Originally posted by 911thology


Hi to everyone. To answer the questions above.
1) Steel does not turn to dust under impulsive loadings, it deforms plastically. ---------- yes, I know it very well. However it was not so on the 9/11. You can't deny that on the 9/11 steel did not 'deform plastically'. It was clearly pulverized. So does this mean that you contradict yourself? But when it comes to me I do not contradict myself. I know very well physical properties of an underground nuclear explosion. Everything around cavity left by it will be crushed to complete microscopic dust - metals and rock alike. This is my statement and I know what I state.
2)...such as shock loading of the surrounding buildings -------------------- don't even doubt that many buildings around the Twin Towers were indeed seriously damaged by subterranean shock some of them needed serious repair, but some were irreparable and had to be demolished - most notably Fiterman Hall, but not only it. Seek in Google and ye shall find.
3) EMP damage -------------------------- EMP does not exist in underground conditions. Because EMP is an electric current that is created by anormous number of fast electrons instantly flying from a hypocenter of a nuclear explosion to every direction. In underground conditions all these electrons, along with neutrons, gamma-rays and X-rays will be stopped in very short distances by surrounding rock. Since electrons can not fly really far in undergound conditions they would not create any EMP whatsoever.
4) collapse from the impact area down without first seeing visible pulverization of the lower floors is inconsistent with the proposed mechanism.----------------------------- in my opinion my explanation is perfect and accepted even by doctors of physics. If you don't like it - I can't help.
5) regarding Granit missile. As I have stated once 'sonic boom' occures only once - when object reaches speed of sound and is about to exceed it. Once it is flying at supersonic speed there is no longer sound boom - typical example - shot of a bullet from any firearm - you hear only a single 'boom' ('shot' in this case) and not multiple or continuous 'boom' ('shots'), all you hear then when the bullet flies at supersonic speed is its whine/whizz. The same is applicable to any supersonic missile. Don't argue, please. The fuel load remaining in the missile provided the very 'ball of fire' described by all Pentagon witnesses and also clearly seen on famous security camera footage 3 frames of which were recently released by FBI. You have to consider tremendous inertia of the missile. Even if exploded it will still fly further the same way.

1. There is no evidence or precedence for the steel to "turn to dust." See, for example, "Behavior of Metals under Impulsive Loads" by J. S. Rinehart and J. Pearson.
2. Were buildings not struck by debris torn down?
3. This depends on geology and depth. High energy neutrons penetrate quite far. The EMP pulse is not powerful but is detectable. See "Low Frequency Electromagnetic Signals from, Underground Explosions - On-Site
Inspections Research Progress Report" UCRL-ID-122067
by J. J. Sweeney July 21,1995 and references within, e.g.,
Malik, J., R'. Fitzhugh, and E Hormuth, "Electromagnetic Signals from Underground Nuclear Explosions," Los Alamos National Laboratory Report, Los Alamos, NM, 1985.
4. In my opinion, your explanation is neither perfect nor believable.
5. The compression wave is produced by the projectile for as long as the projectile is supersonic. The boom from a rifle or cannon is the initial discharge. The crack of a supersonic projectile as it flies past is the shockwave. Report to the nearest battlefield for experimental verification. "Don't argue, please," you are incorrect.
The fuel load remaining in the missile was not nearly large enough to produce the hydrocarbon fire. No high explosives were detonated or the extent and type of damage would be very different. The Granit is big for a missile but small for an aircraft. Witnesses would have no trouble discriminating between a commercial aircraft and a 30' long Mach 2+ missile. The Granit or any other MKB Raduga missile would not fit the flight and damage profile.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by 911thology
---.

Hi to everyone. Answering new suggestions:
1. There is no evidence or precedence for the steel to "turn to dust." See, for example, "Behavior of Metals under Impulsive Loads" by J. S. Rinehart and J. Pearson. --------------- I don’t need to see that work for precedence. Instead, I prefer seeing HQ video footages of WTC collapses at free-fall speed along with photos showing steel dust (not concrete dust, bust STEEL dust).
2. Were buildings not struck by debris torn down? ------------------ yes. Most notably Fiterman Hall.
3. This depends on geology and depth. High energy neutrons penetrate quite far. The EMP pulse is not powerful but is detectable. ---------------------------------- I agree. In the WTC nuclear demolition case it was definitely detectable too. And if they were special apparatuses they would detect it. However, it would not cause any visible damage and it was not therefore noticed.
4. In my opinion, your explanation is neither perfect nor believable. ------------------ up to you. Many find it not only believable, but the only possible. Including doctors of physics.
5. The compression wave is produced by the projectile for as long as the projectile is supersonic. The boom from a rifle or cannon is the initial discharge. The crack of a supersonic projectile as it flies past is the shockwave. Report to the nearest battlefield for experimental verification. "Don't argue, please," you are incorrect. ------------------ sound of ‘shot’ during any firearm discharge is the very sonic boom whether you like it or not. Because rounds with half-load of gun-powder gave a bullet a lesser speed than speed of sound therefore no ‘shot’ is heard. These kind of special rounds called ‘silent’ rounds and intended for special purposes (they could also be self-made, just remove half of gun-powder and you will have this ‘silent’ round).
The fuel load remaining in the missile was not nearly large enough to produce the hydrocarbon fire. No high explosives were detonated or the extent and type of damage would be very different. ------------------ I can’t understand what you mean, therefore I can’t address it properly.
The Granit is big for a missile but small for an aircraft. Witnesses would have no trouble discriminating between a commercial aircraft and a 30' long Mach 2+ missile. ----------------- I don’t care what ‘witnesses’ saw. They could be either not attentive enough, or shocked enough, or simply liar hired by secret services in later cover-up attempt. Their testimonies mean nothing to me.
The Granit or any other MKB Raduga missile would not fit the flight and damage profile. ------------------------ the anti-ship Granit would perfectly fit both flight and damage profile. More than perfectly. However, I have never talked about ‘Raduga’. I talked about ‘Granite’ only, because I simply know what hit the Pentagon and I said what I know. If you don’t believe me, it is another story. But this is not my problem.

Originally posted by 911thology

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by 911thology
---.

Hi to everyone. Answering new suggestions:
1. There is no evidence or precedence for the steel to "turn to dust." See, for example, "Behavior of Metals under Impulsive Loads" by J. S. Rinehart and J. Pearson. --------------- I don’t need to see that work for precedence. Instead, I prefer seeing HQ video footages of WTC collapses at free-fall speed along with photos showing steel dust (not concrete dust, bust STEEL dust).
2. Were buildings not struck by debris torn down? ------------------ yes. Most notably Fiterman Hall.

5. The compression wave is produced by the projectile for as long as the projectile is supersonic. The boom from a rifle or cannon is the initial discharge. The crack of a supersonic projectile as it flies past is the shockwave. Report to the nearest battlefield for experimental verification. "Don't argue, please," you are incorrect. ------------------ sound of ‘shot’ during any firearm discharge is the very sonic boom whether you like it or not. Because rounds with half-load of gun-powder gave a bullet a lesser speed than speed of sound therefore no ‘shot’ is heard. These kind of special rounds called ‘silent’ rounds and intended for special purposes (they could also be self-made, just remove half of gun-powder and you will have this ‘silent’ round).
The fuel load remaining in the missile was not nearly large enough to produce the hydrocarbon fire. No high explosives were detonated or the extent and type of damage would be very different. ------------------ I can’t understand what you mean, therefore I can’t address it properly.
The Granit is big for a missile but small for an aircraft. Witnesses would have no trouble discriminating between a commercial aircraft and a 30' long Mach 2+ missile. ----------------- I don’t care what ‘witnesses’ saw. They could be either not attentive enough, or shocked enough, or simply liar hired by secret services in later cover-up attempt. Their testimonies mean nothing to me.
The Granit or any other MKB Raduga missile would not fit the flight and damage profile. ------------------------ the anti-ship Granit would perfectly fit both flight and damage profile. More than perfectly. However, I have never talked about ‘Raduga’. I talked about ‘Granite’ only, because I simply know what hit the Pentagon and I said what I know. If you don’t believe me, it is another story. But this is not my problem.

1. Video does not provide elemental analysis of dust. There is no evidence for steel "dust" in the collapse.
2. "Fiterman Hall, located at 30 West Broadway between Barclay and Park Place, was damaged in the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) when falling debris from 7 World Trade Center left it with significant damage in its south façade." www.lowermanhattan.info...
5. You are misinformed. Decreased charge rounds are not silent during discharge. If they are subsonic, the bullets produce no sonic crack when passing. Many older pistol rounds are subsonic. The standard .45 cal ACP cartridge is subsonic and a 45 cal Colt M1911 pistol is not silent during discharge.
MKB Raguda is a Russian company that designed the Granit and other missiles like it. The type of damage to the Pentagon does not fit with what the Granit would have produced. It is much faster and smaller than a commercial aircraft. It has a 750kg HE warhead which would behave much differently from thousands of gallons of fuel igniting. Its "Legenda" satellite targeting system may no longer be in operation. Witnesses saw a commercial airliner not a Granit anti-shipping missile. The missile theory is completely unsupported. The theory du jour is that it was a remote controlled 757. Try that; it is more consistent with the evidence.

Hi to everyone.

As I have said from the very beginning I am not interested in answering any questions on this thread because I did not notice any real interest to the issue here. I answered merely one question (about why windows were not blown out) and I stated that it was merely on an exceptional basis. However, now it seems that it is going to be a full discussion, which I don’t like due to the following points:
1) In order to participate in a real discussion sides must respect each other and respect elementary logic.
2) Sides must be really interested in the subject and the point of discussion must be to find the truth. However, here I see neither interest, nor respect to elementary logic (thanks that so far nobody hurled here personal insults, I indeed appreciate that).
All I see here is not an attempt to use argument in order to clarify details in establishing the truth, but an attempt to use argument to disprove my claims at any cost. Which resembles playing football game with two teams, but without a judge and with one goal-post instead of two. You can easily perceive that this is a real game with a single goal-post and without a judge by reviewing questions and answers above and below. As you may sincerely expect I am not interested to participate in such a game. However, as a matter of courtesy I will answer last time the questions below. But don’t expect, please, that I will spend here my precious time to answer any other questions.

1. Video does not provide elemental analysis of dust. There is no evidence for steel "dust" in the collapse. --------------------------------- I have no obligation to provide any evidence for existence of the steel dust. I simply state it as the matter of fact and as a matter of principle I will not spend my precious time on providing any proof to my claim. It is the well established and well-known fact. Seek Google and ye shall find.

2. "Fiterman Hall, located at 30 West Broadway between Barclay and Park Place, was damaged in the September 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) when falling debris from 7 World Trade Center left it with significant damage in its south façade." -------------------------- as you can see from many available movies showing WTC-7 collapse there were no debris at all in case of its collapse. The WTC-7 collapsed neatly right down its own footprint. Therefore no debris were available to fly around (especially to far distances) and to damage the Fiterman Hall. It was damaged by a subterranean shock and only by a subterranean shock. Period.

www.lowermanhattan.info... -------------------------- I am not interested in any official cover up story. I ignore it.

5. You are misinformed. Decreased charge rounds are not silent during discharge. If they are subsonic, the bullets produce no sonic crack when passing. Many older pistol rounds are subsonic. The standard .45 cal ACP cartridge is subsonic and a 45 cal Colt M1911 pistol is not silent during discharge. ------------------------------- I am not misinformed. Unlike many of you I began to experiment with explosives when I was about 10 years old. It was my main childhood hobby. Besides, I spent 10 years in the military. I know what I say very well and I am not going to continue this pointless argument. All typical firearm rounds are supersonic, including 45 cal or anything else. Only ‘special’ rounds are sub-sonic and therefore they are silent. Period.

MKB Raguda is a Russian company that designed the Granit and other missiles like it.------------------------------- you will teach a Soviet military officer where Soviet missiles are made? Be ashamed. I reveal you a secret. Granit is produced by NPO ‘Machinostroenie’, not by MKB Raduga.

The type of damage to the Pentagon does not fit with what the Granit would have produced. --------------------------- pointless argument. I insist it does. Period.

TO BE CONTINUED

CONTINUE FROM PREVIOUS POST

It is much faster and smaller than a commercial aircraft. It has a 750kg HE warhead ----------------------- no Granit have any ‘750kg HE’ warhead. All without even a single exception Granit missiles are equipped with standard marine 500 kiloton thermo-nuclear warhead. Period. (Will you believe irresponsible Wikipedia or a real military officer who served in the very nuclear department of the Soviet Armed Forces?)

which would behave much differently from thousands of gallons of fuel igniting. ------------------------------- unexploded thermo-nuclear warhead with an intentionally broken detonator will not behave like anything unusual, but as only a kind of a giant bullet (or a giant hammer if you like more this comparison).

Its "Legenda" satellite targeting system may no longer be in operation. ----------------------- I could only wander where you draw you incredible ‘expert’ knowledge? From Wikipedia? Granit missiles have nothing to do with any satellite. They have in-built inertial guidance system with pre-loaded coordinates of the most important stationary targets (like the Pentagon) and also pre-loaded data on marine moving targets - like the US aircraft carrier groups and other ship orders.

Witnesses saw a commercial airliner not a Granit anti-shipping missile. ---------------------- I don’t care about ‘witnesses’. They are either irresponsible guys, or outright liars, hired by the FBI.

The missile theory is completely unsupported. -------------------- for me it is completely supported and even more than completely supported.

The theory du jour is that it was a remote controlled 757. ------------------- why not remote-controlled 747? Why not remote controlled 727? Why not remote-controlled 737? Why not remote controlled A310? Why not remote controlled military jet-fighter? Why not remote controlled Tomahawk-missile? Only because the 9/11 Commission stated it was 757? But when it comes to me I don't care what the poor 9/11 Commission stated. I have my own opinion.

Try that; it is more consistent with the evidence. ------------------ ya… especially when it comes to a round punch-out hole on the 6th capital wall of the Pentagon that every one saw photographs of.

I think we better close this discussion on this optimistic note. It is pointless anyway.

am I missing something? the video says private, how'd you all see it?

reply to post by 911thology


Perhaps you are pretending to be an ex-military officer. Perhaps you are the agent provocateur. You are either intentionally wrong or are not who you say you are. You claim:
"I am not misinformed. Unlike many of you I began to experiment with explosives when I was about 10 years old. It was my main childhood hobby. Besides, I spent 10 years in the military. I know what I say very well and I am not going to continue this pointless argument. All typical firearm rounds are supersonic, including 45 cal or anything else. Only ‘special’ rounds are sub-sonic and therefore they are silent. Period."

Is this statement supposed to provide credence for your unsupported statements? Many of us experimented with explosives. Some of us are organic chemists that synthesized explosives. Some of us also served for many years in the military. Any military officer of any country would know that many standard pistol rounds are sub-sonic and the .45 ACP is one of them. Those that are not, such as 9x19mm, require reduced velocity rounds for use with a silencer. This is because of the sonic crack of supersonic projectiles, which defeats the idea of a silencer. Why bother to have a silencer if all you need is a reduced load? Anyone can look up the velocities of the military .45 ACP and see that they are sub-sonic. You are completely wrong.
The Granite would have made a sonic boom during its entire supersonic flight. There was no supersonic missile at the Pentagon. Period.

reply to post by pteridine

Perhaps you are pretending to be an ex-military officer. Perhaps you are the agent provocateur. You are either intentionally wrong or are not who you say you are. You claim:

Wow! What happened into just saying I disagree? Perhaps, he has done his research.
It is none of our business who the poster is. Because, you disagree doesn’t give you the right to insult the poster does it?

My point is pteridine, you are not always right. I don’t completely disagree with the OP and the reason is because no testing was ever done to the WTC debris, besides professor Jones report. You and I know that all the WTC debris were well guarded, and every dump truck had tracking devices on them so the criminals knew if the trucks made any unusual stops along the way.

Anything is possible.

reply to post by impressme


Look at the P.S on his last post. He implies that because I disagree with him, I must be a paid agent. He dismisses all of the Pentagon witnesses as agents or "in shock."
He is absolutely wrong about supersonic projectiles, a simple concept, so the rest of his science-based statements are in question and and I am calling him on it.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by impressme

 

Look at the P.S on his last post. He implies that because I disagree with him, I must be a paid agent. He dismisses all of the Pentagon witnesses as agents or "in shock."
---

Hi to everyone. Personally to 'pteridine' - I did not imply any insult to you personally. I just posted the link about 'government-appointed chat trolls' as a generally interesting info. Just in case. However, the mere fact that you disagree with me is already suspicious (at least to me). I could clearly define my own position as a starting point of my argument:
1) I do not believe aluminum projectiles could penetrate thick double-walled steel columns of the WTC where each wall was thicker than a typical front armor of a tank (at least a tank of WWII era). I am sure the aluminum planes should have smashed themselves flat on the WTC wall and fall back to the street.
2) I do not believe that the WTC building collapses have anything to do with initial kerosene fires.
3) I do not believe that it is technically possible to use any conventional explosives to demolish any modern steel-framed hollow-tube type of building irrespectively of its actual height (be it 47 stories high WTC-7, the WTC Twin Towers or even a 2-stories building of similar construction). It is only possible to slowly disassemble such a building and not to 'implode' it by commonly known demolition methods applicable only to old brick-walled or concrete-paneled buildings of the 1st half of the 20 century.
4) It is not possible to use thermite for the abovementioned reason because a) thermite could cut steel indeed, but does it very slowly b) it is not possible to evenly distribute thermite along multiple long WTC beams c) thermite is very difficult to ignite and it will not be possible to create any workable ignition scheme even if to presume that the above condition (b) were technically achieved d) in any case thermite melts steel, not reduces it to fluffy microscopic dust.
5) If so-called 'nano-thermite' would really exist - then similar considerations mentioned above would apply. However it does not exist in reality, but only in sick imaginations of conspiracy theorists (you don't need to bother posting here any links to any article describing its alleged existence, because it will not change my opinion).
6) pre-9/11 definition of 'ground zero' term (note PRE-9/11, not post-9/11) clearly implies that it has something to do with an atomic/hydrogen explosions and I would like to always emphasize this fact.
7) US Government's undertook unprecedented campaign to force dictionaries publishers into 'broadening' or 'diluting' a clear original pre-9/11 definition of 'ground zero' term and indeed in all post-9/11 dictionaries (including those on-line) this definition was 'broadened' and therefore now 'ground zero' term does not sound as 'nuclear' as it used to sound before the 9/11. I would like to always emphasize this fact too. Because this is a 'smoking gun' US Government was caught with.
8) I insist that 'Doomsday plane' was scrambled in result of atomic alert caused by approaching Soviet-made missile known to be nuclear tipped that eventually hit the Pentagon.
9) I insist that no plane (passenger or military, manned or drone) would ever be able to penetrate six (!) capital walls of the Pentagon leaving round holes that show no marks of the plane's wings (akin to 'plane' wings in case the WTC Twin Towers' holes).
10) I do not believe the 9/11 Commission Report because it is blatant lie.
11) I claim that the most of true 9/11 evidence is classified and therefore it is not in any public access in any form.
Before we continue would you mind, Sir, to clarify your own position in regard to 11 abovementioned points as clearly and as unambiguously I did? What is you personal stance? And then we could continue.

reply to post by 911thology

5) If so-called 'nano-thermite' would really exist - then similar considerations mentioned above would apply. However it does not exist in reality, but only in sick imaginations of conspiracy theorists (you don't need to bother posting here any links to any article describing its alleged existence, because it will not change my opinion).

Do you have proof that nano-thermite does not exist?
If our military were involved in the destruction of the WTC wouldn’t it be possible for them to use a supper nano-thermite that “could be top secret,” we are talking about our military concealing the patens rights to this highly explosive chemical, therefore making it near impossible into comparing its chemical composition.

Even Steven Jones could not find any grade of nano-thermite that was paten to match his findings of a super nano-thermite. That is why he said we are talking about military sciences.

6) pre-9/11 definition of 'ground zero' term (note PRE-9/11, not post-9/11) clearly implies that it has something to do with an atomic/hydrogen explosions and I would like to always emphasize this fact.

At this point I cannot not entirely disagree with you because no one have investigated this theory, to prove it wrong. However, if atomic/hydrogen explosions were used wouldn’t that leave a highly contaminating fall-out, at ground zero, which would later cause everyone at ground zero to have cancers later on.

I would have to believe the demolition company that was hired to clean up ground zero would have known, and would have worn contaminations suits, or Hazmat suits.
We know the demolition company did not want anyone touching any of the WTC debris in fact they had all their dump trucks fitted with tracking devices so they would know if any of their trucks made any unnecessary stops along they way to the landfill.

8) I insist that 'Doomsday plane' was scrambled in result of atomic alert caused by approaching Soviet-made missile known to be nuclear tipped that eventually hit the Pentagon.

Do you have any sources to back this claim?

10) I do not believe the 9/11 Commission Report because it is blatant lie.

I support you on this, one hundred percent.

11) I claim that the most of true 9/11 evidence is classified and therefore it is not in any public access in any form.

Probably very true.

reply to post by 911thology


1) I believe that the aircraft were strong enough and had enough kinetic energy to penetrate the box columns. At the level of impact, the box columns were made of 0.25” [6.25mm] steel. A careful look at the photos shows mainly breaks at joints but some appear to have been cut by the aircraft. Rail guns fire aluminum projectiles through armor plate so material differences are not prohibitive.

2) The initial fires started the contents burning. Modern offices are fuel-laden with paper, polymers, paint, adhesives, and wood products. These fires were hot enough to reduce the strength of the undamaged steel to cause collapse.

3) I believe that it is possible to use explosives in a controlled demolition of WTC7 but not covertly. Each box member will require four linear shaped charges and each “I” beam will require three, for every desired break. The complexity would require many months of work, internal cabling, stripping of walls and floors to structural levels and a lot of explosives. I agree that a demolition would be more of a deconstruction over a long time with a complex, large building such as this.


4) I agree that thermite is a poor choice for a demolition that would require millisecond response. The time constant for heat conduction and melting is far too great and the uncertainty of effective shear is too large. There is no displacement of vertical columns on melting; the building could merely sit back down on the shear point. Horizontals would have to have some containment of the melt. Many tons of thermite would be required.


5) I believe that it exists but would be a poor choice for the proposed demolition.

6) Ground zero means the place where the event took place. I do not consider usage by news reporters as a confession of anything.

7) Semantics. Physical evidence, such as a smoking gun is a smoking gun.

8) Given the speed and range of the Granit, what was the launch platform? Who would launch it? How would anyone but the Soviet Navy have access to the launch technology? A sonic shock wave would have accompanied the missile for most of its flight path. I believe a passenger jet struck the Pentagon, as stated. It is the biggest and most destructive non-nuclear cruise missile in the world for soft target attack.

9) The wing penetrations are visible in the facade.

10) It is a report. There is no evidence of lying.

11) It is apparent that some of the 911 evidence is being kept out of the public domain.

I don't think nuclear demolition happened, but it kind of makes sense considering how long it is taking them to rebuild ground zero. They began construction on World Trade Center 1 in 2006, and started building WTC 2-6 in 2008-2009. Four to six years of decontaminating the radiation from a small next generation nuclear device. Maybe. ?

Did you guys know that WTC 7 is the only building to be completely rebuilt since the 9/11 attacks? It was finished in 2006. The rest of the new WTCs look pretty sweet though.
en.wikipedia.org...


I Googled "ground zero radiation" to see if anything had been reported, and the first hit is "Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre," which is a sample 15 page sample of a 153 page .PDF. The author has some pretty good charts and evidence suggesting a nuclear demolition.

In the dust, they found high levels of chemical elements that had no
business being there. Extremely rare and toxic elements. Elements
such as Barium, Strontium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum, Yttrium. Even
some elements that only exist in radioactive form.

www.reopen911.org...

I don't have time to read it all now before school.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by tooo many pills]

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by 911thology

 

TO MAKE THINGS SIMPLIER, YOUR POSITIONS ON THE 11 POINTS BELOW COULD BE INTEPRETED AS FOLLOWS:

1) You believe aluminum planes were able to penetrate steel perimeters of the WTC. (meaning you totally disagree with me)

2) You believe and try to find supporting arguments to defend the idea that the WTC Twin Towers were weakened and collapsed because of the initial fires caused by the planes (i.e. you agree with conclusions of the officially approved interpretation of the 9/11 events and thus you totally disagree with me, as well as with any 9/11 conspiracy theorist/'truther').

3) You believe that while it was technically possible - to perform controlled demolition of the WTC-7 by conventional methods, due to these being impossible to be prepared in such a short period of time (it would take months to prepare) you conclude the WTC-7 collapse was not a controlled demolition, but was an accident.

4) You agree that thermite could not have been used in demoliting the WTC. Moreover you state this not because the 9/11 Commission Report denies the 'thermite conspiracy theory', but because you provide your own logical considerations why it is impossible from merely technical point of view (making this the only point you agree with me in full).

5) You believe the so-called 'nano-thermite' exists in reality, however you don' believe it could have been used in the WTC demolition (meaning you disagree with my position on the first half of this point, but agree with my position on the second half of this point).

6) You disagree with my statement that 'ground zero' in its pre-9/11 definition used to mean a 'hypocenter of an atomic/hydrogen explosion' and nothing else (you ignore this self-evident fact and disagree with me).

7) You dismiss the point that 'good guys' manipulated post-9/11 dictionaries in order to re-define 'ground zero' term in them.

8) You don't believe that Granite missile could have been used in the Pentagon attack due to variety of questions that you believe no one could answer. You believe it could only be a large passenger plane that hit the Pentagon. You completely ignore the fact the 'Doomsday plane' was seen flying on the 9/11 in the same manner the 9/11 Commission ignored the WTC-7 collapse.

9) You believe that wings of the plane that hit the Pentagon left marks on its walls.

10) You don't see any evidence of lie in the 9/11 Commission Report.

11) You agree that not all 9/11 evidence is publicly available.

Dear Sir. I would like to express my sincere admiration at your truly heroic efforts to defend the notion that the WTC Twin Towers' collapses were due to initial fires along with your heroic efforts to defend the Report of the 9/11 Commission. However, I would like to disappoint you. Since my basic premises are that the Towers collapses have nothing to do with initial fires and that the Report of the 9/11 Commission is lie, lie and nothing else than lie, the two of us seem not to have any common ground to continue this argument. Being an apparently logical and fair person you can't deny that productive argument is only possible when the two arguing sides have at least some common ground, at least a little bit of it. However, it our particular case we have no common ground whatsoever. Even if not to count your attempt to discard importance of the 'ground zero' definition and manipulations with it in post-9/11 dictionaries, we still have no common ground to continue this argument. Because I do not believe the 9/11 Commission Report is true, while you claim (I am not quite sure if you believe, but at least you claim) this Report is true. Due to this difference between 2 of us I can not continue this argument with you and I will not consider your further counter-arguments as worthy to be addressed. Sorry.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by 911thology

 

1) Do you have proof that nano-thermite does not exist? ------------------- it is common sense. If something is being used as false evidence you could securely presume that the actual subject is most probably false too. Given that I have never heard of existence of any so-called ‘nano-thermite’ (despite being quite familiar with various explosive- and incendiary materials) prior to the claim that its alleged ‘traces’ were allegedly discovered in the WTC dust, yes, I am certain it does not exist. No, I don’t have any solid proof of it, it is just my common sense says me so. In any case if the alleged ‘traces’ of so-called ‘nano-thermite’ were indeed discovered in the WTC dust/debris, this awful revelation should have become known in 2002, latest in 2003, but not in 2009. Do you agree with this logic?

If our military were involved in the destruction of the WTC wouldn’t it be possible for them to use a supper nano-thermite that “could be top secret,” we are talking about our military concealing the patens rights to this highly explosive chemical, therefore making it near impossible into comparing its chemical composition. --------------------- thermite is not ‘explosive’. It is ‘incendiary’. If to presume that ‘nano-thermite’ would really exist, it would not be ‘explosive’ either, it would still be ‘incendiary’. Even if to presume that ‘nano-thermite’ were existent material and were indeed used by malicious US military in the WTC destruction, it could only melt steel to a liquid state, but not to reduce steel to fluffy microscopic dust.

2) Even Steven Jones could not find any grade of nano-thermite that was paten to match his findings of a super nano-thermite. That is why he said we are talking about military sciences. ------------------------ Steven Jones is a shameless charlatan and word ‘even’ in front of his name can not be used in such a context.

6) pre-9/11 definition of 'ground zero' term (note PRE-9/11, not post-9/11) clearly implies that it has something to do with an atomic/hydrogen explosions and I would like to always emphasize this fact.

3) At this point I cannot not entirely disagree with you because no one have investigated this theory, to prove it wrong. However, if atomic/hydrogen explosions were used wouldn’t that leave a highly contaminating fall-out, at ground zero, which would later cause everyone at ground zero to have cancers later on. --------------------------- so, I strongly suggest you not to postpone this research, but to immediately go to the nearest big library and get all big (real big, unabridged and encyclopedic) pre-9/11 dictionaries of English and check out all pre-9/11 definitions of ‘ground zero’. Then compare them with those in post 9/11 dictionaries.

4) I would have to believe the demolition company that was hired to clean up ground zero would have known, and would have worn contaminations suits, or Hazmat suits. ------------------ leadership of demolition company knew it. However, they have no choice than to sacrifice their field personnel by sending it to their certain death – otherwise other ground zero responders (cops, firefighters, volunteers and others) would get suspicious and rumors of ‘something wrong’ would spread making panic. US officials and directors of the ‘Controlled Demolition Inc.’ jointly decided to observe this law: ‘don’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater’. Therefore now former ‘Controlled Demolition Inc.’ employees suffer the very same chronic radiation sickness as the rest of ground zero responders.

TO BE CONTINUED

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by 911thology

 

CONTINUE PREVIOUS POST

8) I insist that 'Doomsday plane' was scrambled in result of atomic alert caused by approaching Soviet-made missile known to be nuclear tipped that eventually hit the Pentagon.

6) Do you have any sources to back this claim? ----------------------------- ‘Doomsday plane’ could only be scrambled in result of confirmed nuclear attack by the Soviet Union/Russia and not under any other circumstances. Because the ‘Doomsday plane’ has no other earmarking than being a spare command post to direct a massive retaliatory nuclear strike against Russia should stationary command post designed to this effect get destroyed or malfunctioned. This planes simply have no other functions. On the other hand to suddenly scramble all 4 Doomsday planes in various locations of the US without any need will be very dangerous, because in the worst case it might provoke a very adverse reaction of Russian strategic forces – they may interpret it in a very wrong manner and out of fear conduct a retaliatory nuclear strike against the US. It is simply too dangerous to play with this kind of stuff. So to transmit an order to scramble all 4 ‘Doomsday planes’ at once you need to have a confirmation that a nuclear attack against the US is under way. Such an alert could not have been caused by a hijacked passenger planes approaching Washington D.C. but only by a missile approaching the Washington D.C. Use your common sense and this will be the very ‘source’ to back my claim.

Originally posted by tooo many pills
I don't think nuclear demolition happened, but it kind of makes sense considering how long it is taking them to rebuild ground zero. They began construction on World Trade Center 1 in 2006, and started building WTC 2-6 in 2008-2009. Four to six years of decontaminating the radiation from a small next generation nuclear device. Maybe. ?

Did you guys know that WTC 7 is the only building to be completely rebuilt since the 9/11 attacks? It was finished in 2006. The rest of the new WTCs look pretty sweet though.
en.wikipedia.org...


I Googled "ground zero radiation" to see if anything had been reported, and the first hit is "Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of The World Trade Centre," which is a sample 15 page sample of a 153 page .PDF. The author has some pretty good charts and evidence suggesting a nuclear demolition.

In the dust, they found high levels of chemical elements that had no
business being there. Extremely rare and toxic elements. Elements
such as Barium, Strontium, Thorium, Cerium, Lanthanum, Yttrium. Even
some elements that only exist in radioactive form.

www.reopen911.org...

I don't have time to read it all now before school.



[edit on 14-4-2010 by tooo many pills]

I would like to inform you that the book you have just mentioned, you can download for free in full 153 pages variety, not only as '15-pages sample'. Just go to www.nucleardemolition.com and get its full version for free. And enjoy reading. However, don't forget to make a little modification to this book while reading. It is because its French author is very humoristic person - instead of '150-kiloton nuclear demolition charge' he used a mockery concept of 'underground clandestine nuclear reactor', while keeping the rest of details WTC nuclear demolition scheme perfectly exact. So to change 'charges' to 'reactors' is just a French humor. All you have to do while reading his book, change back his 'clandestine nuclear reactors' to '150 kiloton nuclear charges' and you will get exactly the right picture. Don't even doubt this French author was indeed joking. Nuclear scientist can not be mistaken and claim such a nonsense that a nuclear reactor could result in a nuclear explosion. It is known even to a school child that only a nuclear charge especially designed as such could explode in a sense of a nuclear explosion, but nuclear reactor could only melt, but never 'explode'. If it is known even to a school child, definitely it is also known to a French nuclear scientist. He just made this sounded a bit 'humoristic', so don't miss the point of his typical French humor. The rest of his book is perfectly serious. No humor at all. I wish you will like reading it.