Pictures Prove Mini Nukes Caused 9-11 Devastation

Originally posted by slugger9787

Here is my dilema.

Those who do not believe the OCS have emotional investment to continue to pursue the issue with a passion.

Those who believe the OCS should not have any emotional investment to continue to try to pesuade non believers to accept the OCS.

There must be some other motivating device here?
What is it that highly motivates OCS believers to passionately strive to convince non believers of OCS?

Okay, call me obtuse, but things have gotten way out of hand on these tailor made abbreviations and nicknames being thrown around here so I have NO idea what the above statement means. I know OS stands for "Official Scenario" as in the 19 al Qaida hijackers, but what is OCS? I imagine it stands for "Official Conspiracy Scenario", which by definition would be the complete opposite of "Official Scenario", but I don't know what the OFFICIAL conspiracy scenario would be since there are more 9/11 conspiracy scenarios than there are grains of sand on a beach.

Do I presume you're referring to the MOST COMMON conspiracy theory there is out of the bunch, which is that the Jews planted controlled demolitions to knock the WTC down, which is by far the most prevalent theory I've seen and holds the most emotional attachment for its subscribers. Therefore, is referencing OCS the same as saying "Jews knocked down the WTC with controlled demolitions?" Just asking...

...and I thought I was on top of things when I found out the difference between MIHOP and LIHOP...

reply to post by slugger9787


Sure. I'll try to do some research on it. So far I have these three sites:

This is a college summary of their work with LiDAR and 9/11 with pictures and thermal imagery:
www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu...

This is actually 1 site with two links. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It has Sept. 27th, 2001 flyovers of ground zero:
www.noaanews.noaa.gov...
This one is just a broader view of Manhattan:
www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

And this one is a library of congress site with thermal imagery in September, October, and February chronologically, as well as LiDAR scans from July before the attacks and Sept. 15th after the attacks. There are then Sept. 17th images of ground zero from a couple angles:
www.loc.gov...

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Okay, call me obtuse, but things have gotten way out of hand

A very obtuse generalization that things have 'GOTTEN WAY OUT OF HAND'
Especially coming from you Good Ol Dave. (aka G.O.D.)

I know OS stands for "Official Scenario" as in the 19 al Qaida hijackers,

It actually is an abbreviation for Official Story.
To be acute about it.

but what is OCS? I imagine it stands for "Official Conspiracy Scenario"

Your imagination needs to place this for OCS [size=25] OFFICIAL CHEESE STORY[/SIZE]

Since there are more 9/11 conspiracy scenarios than there are grains of sand on a beach.

That is a lie, more than sand on a beach?

Do I presume you're

Dave, you know me and my thoughts and perspective by now, So this little game playing about what I meant is illustrative of your psychology in operation.
I sure hope you are not what they consider a big gun?

and I thought I was on top of things when I found out the difference between MIHOP and LIHOP...

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Yeah, it was just a new term someone came up with for Official Conspiracy Story, because the Official Story involves a conspiracy by terrorists to attack the United States.

That's all there is to it.

Slugger, no need to be so violent sounding in your post phrasing (to elaborate, the massive text always sounds violent. Try to keep your argument in regular font size). Stay civil, man.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

[quoe] Yeah, it was just a new term someone came up with for Official Conspiracy Story, because the Official Story involves a conspiracy by terrorists to attack the United States.

That's all there is to it.

It is a term that I came up with that means OFFICIAL CHEESE STORY
Because the OS is full of holes like Swiss Cheese.

Slugger, no need to be so violent sounding in your post phrasing

Fact: Text does not sond violent, nor do it ead violent, unless you are a liberal.

(to elaborate, the massive text always sounds violent).

Give me some sources and links, otherwise you are proving nothing, just stating opinions.

[size=15] OCS = Official Cheese Story

reply to post by slugger9787


Will you comment on the links I found or will you just ignore them? I posted a few sources for those readings of ground zero and thermal scans. Please show me if there is anything in them that is indicative of a nuke.

reply to post by Varemia


Those are not the LiDAR pictures that I was referring to, though they are good in a few points, like the cross section.
I checked all my lins and the potos at the end are blocked.
a couple of them were on the price of liberty and another ed ward website.

The craters are evidence to you of a basement, and to me they speak, though pictures do not speak, of an underground demolition.

Thank you for looking, as I had not seen those photos before.

I believe we are jusy going to have to disagree.

How can I find scientific actual evidence when the information open to pulic is so many decaes old?
As far as nuclear evidence that is.

You believe the OCS and I do not.
Since I do not I am left to speculate my arguement against the OCS and for a plausible alternative.

I never believed the Evidence of 399 in the Kennedy murder, and as such I was a crazy conspiracy nut so that name and label have no affect on me. The lie the Gove told then, is similar to the collective deciept being fed today.

Eventually a new hearing was had on Kennedy and the crazy conspiracy nuts wee suddenly, heeded, after the fact.

The same will be of the OCS and 911.

reply to post by Varemia

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by slugger9787

 

Sure. I'll try to do some research on it. So far I have these three sites:

This is a college summary of their work with LiDAR and 9/11 with pictures and thermal imagery:
www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu...

This is actually 1 site with two links. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It has Sept. 27th, 2001 flyovers of ground zero:
www.noaanews.noaa.gov...
This one is just a broader view of Manhattan:
www.noaanews.noaa.gov...

And this one is a library of congress site with thermal imagery in September, October, and February chronologically, as well as LiDAR scans from July before the attacks and Sept. 15th after the attacks. There are then Sept. 17th images of ground zero from a couple angles:
www.loc.gov...

Varemia,

The flyovers are just annoying but might prove more interesting when I get some freeze frame software to slow it down for analysis.

I've seen most of the remaining links and will agree that they are not conclusive proof of nuclear demolition. Having said that, they do provide an at-the-scene "experience" that conclusively proves that a huge amount of explosives were used to demolish the 3 towers. The minimal debri piles, the scattering of building remains across the whole of the WTC area and beyond cannot coincide with a gravity pancake (unless someone's repealed Newton's Third Law of Motion.)

What was new was the last document (in pdf) that fleshed out the information in the LIDAR and Thermal images but unfortunately didn't go further. Many thanks for posting.

Mini Nuke Theory is there to sound ridiculous so it can be lumped in with thermite to make that one sound ridiculous.

We don't need new theories... we need an Investigation.

I've always thought that MIHOP and LIHOP should just be MIH and LIH.

I mean how do you make something happen not "on purpose"? Or indeed let something happen not "purposely"?

reply to post by JohnJasper

Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!
by J. McMichael
[email protected]
Some of the sources have departed since this essay was originally published on October 21.
Where I could find substitutes, I have indicated them with the word "or"
and a locally cached copy. This revision is published on November 25, 2001. Text

www.public-action.com...

dreat read fellers but i still think it was not mini nukes yes defanetly bombs if it were nukes then most of the people in the out side raideous of the building would have been pritywell viaperised

That can be an issue with nuclear bombes. Pritywell viaperisation.

Originally posted by scott,aussie
dreat read fellers but i still think it was not mini nukes yes defanetly bombs if it were nukes then most of the people in the out side raideous of the building would have been pritywell viaperised

I don't support the nuke theory on 9/11, but I have to let you know that the fashion in which the nukes proposed here are idealized to work is underground. With the insulation of the earth and a small enough nuclear charge, the people nearby would not be vaporized.

There is, however, in my view a problem with the fact that the firefighters trapped in the debris of the tower while in (I think it was a staircase?) there did not get vaporized, and if the blast was concentrated upward, that is something I would expect (given the arguments about steel being vaporized -- though I make a note that I've seen no evidence of vaporized steel).

Also, just for my own and possibly others pleasure, I'll translate your reply into legible English:
"Great read fellers, but I still think it was not mini nukes. Yes, definitely bombs, but if it were nukes then the people outside the radius of the building would have been pretty much vaporized."

With the insulation of the earth and a small enough nuclear charge, the people nearby would not be vaporized.

There is, however, in my view a problem with the fact that the firefighters trapped in the debris of the tower while in (I think it was a staircase?) there did not get vaporized,

An underground thermonuclear blast will create a cavity, globe shaped, underground.
If far enough underground this is all it will do.

At what is called the "ideal depth", that is the depth of the placement of the bomb equals the diameter of the globe, minus several yards.

Ignition at this depth would produce more of a egg shaped cavity, with the blast piercing the narrow end of the "egg" and releasing the blast, heat, upwards.

Beginning a the surface of the earth where the penetration into atmosphere commences, the blast, heat, will look similar to a funnel standing on its narrow end.

The hole the blast pierces trough the surface of the earth, would in the case of WTC1+2 be in the basement.
people on the lower floors would be outside of this funnel shaped blast/heat force and be spared anniliation.
The building above them would be vaporized and so nothing of any mass would fall on them.

My description of events fron the point the blast pierces the earth upwards.

This cavity would fill with any molten steel and other debris.

I would love to see a GPR survey, even today, of the WTC complex.

GPR= Ground Penetrating Radar.

reply to post by slugger9787


But how can that be at the WTC, if the subways still exist there, the underground malls were largely intact, and no one was blown up or vaporized in the basement levels of the WTC?

reply to post by GenRadek


Was anyone in the basement when the building
came down, or just prior to it coming down?

reply to post by slugger9787



Yes - were several people in the concourse (shopping mall under the building),

Tom Canavan, who worked for First Union Bank, stayed on the 47th floor of the North Tower until after the South Tower was hit, after which his evacuation was slowed by congestion in a stairwell. Canavan had just passed through revolving doors into the darkened, glass-strewn underground shopping mall between the two Towers, and had turned back to help a couple when the rumble of the South Tower's destruction began. He was thrown to the ground and trapped in a small space by slabs of concrete. Canavan and another man crawled to an opening near The Sphere -- the World Trade Center Plaza's centerpiece bronze sculpture. The other man crawled out, but Canavan, being larger, was unable to. Canavan continued to struggle, and extracted himself and walked to safety over smouldering rubble that burned the bottoms of his shoes. He had crawled 40 feet east and 30 feet up through the rubble in 25 minutes, escaping just a few minutes before the fall of the North Tower. To date, the identity of the other survivor described by Canavan remains unknown.

In addition were several Port Authority Poilce trapped in elevator shaft underground when South Tower
collapsed

McLoughlin rushed to the Center when he received news of the attack. He assembled a team of four other Port Authority officers, Antonio Rodrigues, 35, Dominick Pezullo, 36, and William Jimeno, 33. Chris Amoroso, 29, a friend of Jimeno, later joined the team. He had already carried people to safety. The four changed into their fire gear and followed McLoughlin through the underground concourse.

The South Tower's debris killed Amoroso and Rodrigues, but McLoughlin managed to lead Jimeno and Pezullo to cover in the vicinity of a freight elevator within the 15 seconds that it took the Tower to come down. McLoughlin and Jimeno were trapped, but Pezullo managed to get free. Instead of climbing out to safety, he chose to stay and attempt to free his fellow officers. That act of selflessness cost him his life: when the North Tower came down, a piece of concrete struck and mortally wounded Pezullo. As Pezzulo lay dying he spoke with Jimeno. Jimeno said "Dominick, I'll never forget." After Pezzulo went quiet, Jimeno said to McLoughlin, "Sarge, this is bad."

Explain if detonating a weapon underground

1) Why were there survivors?

2) No radiation from such a detonation was ever detected

3) Why buildings collapsed from the impact points of the aircraft....

If had done any research instead of parroting idiotic nonsense would have known this

reply to post by thedman


If had done any research instead of parroting idiotic nonsense would have known this.

Same old thedman, atack the person.

So congratulations you have done more research than I on survivors.
If they are outside the cone of heat and blast, they would not be killed.

Do you understand what "ideal depth" means?