Twin Towers Micro-Nuked.

[luciferhorus]

I have been looking into the issue of the use of micro-nukes at the twin towers.

The complete pulverisation of much of the Towers does seem to be rather intriguing; certainly much of the Tower's structure quite simply transformed into dust.

Since the US state terrorists / narco-terrorists do have an arsenal of "secret military techology" and trillions of dollars have allegedly been spent over the years on such projects, I think that it is a statement of the obvious to say that the US military possesses technology which would be unknown to most of humanity.

Further if aircraft did collide with the Twin Towers, the question is begged as to where are their allegedly virtually indestructable engines and what kind f weapons are capable of make large aircraft engines just "dissapear?"

Having looked into the "micro-nukes" theory, I though I might start a thread looking at the pros and cons of this theory and start off with Stephen Jones' analysis of this, since Jones is actually a physicist and a specialist in nuclear physics who pioneered cold fusion research,


Lux

___________________________


http://photos.upi.com/slideshow/lbox/fc7c4046fc7e3e83fcd4b8cc581ccd69/WAP2001121403.jpg

'Nuclear Devices Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers???????????'

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/nukes.html

The idea that nuclear devices, and in particular, 'mini-nukes', were used to destroy the Twin Towers has been promoted in a number of quarters, such as in the DVD 9/11 Eyewitness.

Promoters of the mini-nuke idea have suggested that such weapons were needed to produce the thorough pulverization of concrete observed at Ground Zero, and other aspects of the destruction.

Dr. Steven E. Jones has refuted this idea repeatedly, including in the following short essay.

e x c e r p t
title: Testing the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers
author: Steven E. Jones

Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.
I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).
Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.
I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.
Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.
Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers.



In September, 2006, James Fetzer posted a series of articles on ScholarsFor911Truth.org suggesting that 'mini-nukes' were used to destroy the Twin Towers. Fetzer pitted Dr. Steven Jones' one article debunking the idea against six, implying that the idea had merit.
Promoters of the mini-nukes idea have also supported their claim with news stories of nuclear contamination in landfills near New York City, ignoring the fact that the stories were about radium contamination from industrial equipment.

A simple disproof of the idea that nuclear weapons were used to destroy the Towers is that all such weapons generate intense electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Onlookers would have been blinded had any such devices been used.

Despite the scientific refutation of the mini-nukes idea by Jones and others using simple scientific arguments, James Fetzer continued to promote the idea on the ScholarsFor911Truth.org website -- a site that purports to represent the group of scholars that includes co-founder Steven Jones.

Another debunking of the nuclear attack "theory" is provided by a Finnish author:

s u m m a r y
title: WTC hydrogen bomb theory refuted


This page provides a 9-point refutation of the ideal [sic] that nuclear devices were used to destroy the WTC buildings. It includes an e-mail exchange between the critique's author and Hannu Yli-Karjanmaa, who has posted the nukes "theory" among a collection of articles attributed to an anonymous Finnish "military expert" it.

[edelweiss pirate]

The foundations were possibly mini-nuked.

There's an awesome video called 9-11 Eyewitness.


It is earie to see the smoke raising from the foundations and hear the rumble of a trully huge underground explosion....

Minutes later, the whole lot comes down.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4563604978641682920#

[luciferhorus]

The foundations were possibly mini-nuked.

There's an awesome video called 9-11 Eyewitness.


It is earie to see the smoke raising from the foundations and hear the rumble of a trully huge underground explosion....

Minutes later, the whole lot comes down.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4563604978641682920#


I think that it is quite possible that certain types of advanced military technology could have been used which turned much of the building to dust, and we can only speculate really about what the US state terrorists have in their secret arsenals, however the problem with the micro-nukes theory, is that according to Stephen Jones (whose area of expertise and research is actually nuclear physics), there is simply not the tell tale evidence which nulcear weapons leave behind.

I think that part of the problem is that we do know for certain that the US state terrorists do have nuclear weapons and micro-nukes, so when we see something which resembles a nuclear detonation there is a tendency to jump to conclusions. Personally I think that it may well have been specifically because nuclear weapons leave behind certain obvious tell tale, trademark signs that can be identified by scientists that nuclear weapons were not used.

Lux



"Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.
I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).

Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.
I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.
Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.
Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers." Stephen Jones. Ibid

[stannrodd]

Not sure why the Opening Post has a picture of a typical Pipe Bomb in a suitcase .. hardly relevant to the concept of a nuke ..

Mercury (movement) switches, battery, pipe and fittings with explosives inside .. hardly elaborate shielding for nuke materials etc etc ..

Move it and "bang" ..

Perhaps the author can elaborate.

Stann

[ultima1]

Radiation found at the WTC and Pentagon was blamed on Depleted Uranium from the planes.

Only problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry DU they carry Tungsten.

[luciferhorus]

Not sure why the Opening Post has a picture of a typical Pipe Bomb in a suitcase .. hardly relevant to the concept of a nuke ..

Mercury (movement) switches, battery, pipe and fittings with explosives inside .. hardly elaborate shielding for nuke materials etc etc ..

Move it and "bang" ..

Perhaps the author can elaborate.

Stann

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/mass_destruction/nuclear/images/nuclear_suitcase_bomb.gif

Nuclear Weapon Production for World Peace, the Unification of the Motherland and the eradication of the financial and military command and control centres of the Anglo-American state terrorists / narco-terrorists (i.e. for Peaceful Purposes only).

I think that what has occurred is that a popular misconception about nuclear weapons has arisen because of the size of devices such as the Trident type nuclear missiles. The only reason such devices are very large is due to the fact that they are "rockets" which carry the warhead to a particular distant location.


Critical Mass.

The critical mass of nuclear material depends upon the "grade" of material.

For example.

The critical mass for lower-grade uranium depends strongly on the grade: with 20% U-235 it is over 400 kg; with 15% U-235, it is well over 600 kg.

Critical mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However,

modern warheads contain only an estimated 2 to 4 kg weapon grade plutonium

http://www.ricin.com/nuke/bg/bomb.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Nuclear_predetonation.svg/250px-Nuclear_predetonation.svg.png

This is actually a very small amount of material which would easily fit inside a suitcase.

With regards to "Move it and "bang"

The two halves of the critical mass are held apart, each half can be dropped from a great height, or one can fire endless rounds of ammunition at them and nothing will occur. Inside a weapon, the two halves are held apart and are relatively safe; the distance between them means that they never go supercritical. Even if you held the two halves together with your hands, there would only be a small spark (don't try this at home children without parental supervision and sufficient body bags and cleaning equipment to clean up body parts) and the two halves would push each other apart. A small amount of "conventional explosives" such as TNT are required, not to "blow up" the nuclear material (in which case one one only have a "dirty bomb") which would only scatter radiation, but rather to "compress" the two halves of the critical mass together.

Thus a nuclear weapon of the above illustrated kind would not simply detonate if it were "moved." Further with regards to "shielding" the actual container of a nuclear device does need to be quite solid, however this is because what the device does is rather than creating an "explosion" like a hand grenade, the TNT compresses the two halves of the critical mass together and the force of the blast holds them together for a sufficient number of milliseconds for a tiny piece of the mass to convert to Energy; thus the container only needs to be strong enough to "contain" the pressure of the TNT detonation.

When held apart, since the two halves of the mass do not become "supercritical" only a minimum amount of shielding is required.

The foundations were possibly mini-nuked.

Radiation found at the WTC and Pentagon was blamed on Depleted Uranium from the planes.

Only problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry DU they carry Tungsten.

Firstly I must state that I am not a professional physicist. My interest in physics is predominately for military purposes and in terms of the use of nuclear weapons in a guerrilla warfare scenario which would bring about the defeat of the Anglo-American state terrorists and the destruction of the financial and military command and control centres. Since the Anglo-American state terrorists do possess weapons of mass destruction and are already using them, their many enemies have been placed in a position where they are now "forced" by necessity to prepare to retaliate against them using similar means.

http://1984usa.com/higherlearning/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/depleted-uranium_2005.jpg

Dr. Stephen Jones "is" probably one of the world's leading physicists and was well known for his fusion experiments prior to his involvement in the 911 debate.

Just to restate Jones' statement on the issue:

"Empirical Facts: All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided, and much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.
I have studied fusion for decades, and have made frequent measurements of neutrons (as well as charged particles).
Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples and a solidified metal sample for radioactivity using a Geiger counter: I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY. This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since neutron activation levels were zero.
I also tested some sand gathered from a nuclear-bomb test site decades ago for comparison – and the Geiger counter showed hundreds of counts per minute. This also shows the long life of the radioactive residues due to nuclear bombs – the sand still yields high Geiger-counter readings decades after the nuclear bomb blast.
Note that concrete pulverization is often achieved in controlled demolitions with chemical explosives, e.g., the Seattle Kingdome demolition.
Mini-nukes are not needed for pulverization nor for “top-down” demolition as observed for the WTC Towers."

We know for a fact that the US state terrorists possess various weapons of mass destruction and that they "do" use them for terrorist activities, however this does not mean that they "did" use them at 911, and indeed there appears to be no evidence that they used them.

The pulverisation of concrete and the large pools of melted steel which remained hot for long periods after the demolition can be explained by chemical explosives. Thermate allegedly contains it's own oxygen source and will continue to burn even if buried under tons of rubble and starved of oxygen.

I certainly do not discount the idea that some type of non conventional weapons may have been used to reduce the towers to dust, however there is simply no evidence from independent experts that the WTC "demolition" was caused by micro-nukes and the "WTC controlled demolition" argument does not depend upon it.

Since Stephen Jones' is probably the best known "expert" proponent of the "911 WTC was a controlled demolition" and "911 was an black US military operation" perspectives I think that his evidence on the lack of a "nuclear detonation signature" at the WTC can be considered to be reliable.

Frankly I think it may well be the case that "micro-nukes" were not used simply because they do leave a signature which can be identified. Having said this I do predict that the Anglo-American state terrorists will in all probability carry out a nuclear false flag at some point, "and" that their various enemies will utilise such weapons against them also; it is simply inevitable,

Lux
Fire, Plague and Poisoned Waters.
______________


Suitcase nuclear weapons

Suitcase nuke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There has been no official information released on the existence of true suitcase or briefcase-sized nuclear weapons in either the U.S. or Russian arsenals. However, the Washington, D.C.–based intelligence-firm, Center For Defense Information (CDI), states that the US government produced a class of nuclear devices in the late 1970s which were small enough to fit into an actual suitcase or briefcase.[citation needed] Likewise, CDI claims that a detailed training replica—with dummy explosives and no fissionable material—was routinely concealed inside a briefcase and hand-carried on domestic airline flights in the early 1980s.[5][non-primary source needed]

While the explosive power of the W54—up to an equivalent of 6 kiloton[6] of TNT—is not much by the normal standards of a nuclear weapon (the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II were around 16 to 21 kilotons each), their value lies in their ability to be easily smuggled across borders, transported by means widely available, and placed as close to the target as possible. Even a 1-kt. nuclear weapon would be many times more powerful than even the largest truck bombs for purposes of destroying a single building or target.[citation needed]

Russian suitcase nukes
In 1997, former Russian National Security Advisor Alexander Lebed made public claims about lost "suitcase nukes" following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In an interview with the newsmagazine 60 Minutes, Lebed said:

I'm saying that more than a hundred weapons out of the supposed number of 250 are not under the control of the armed forces of Russia. I don't know their location. I don't know whether they have been destroyed or whether they are stored or whether they've been sold or stolen, I don't know.[citation needed]
However, the Russian government immediately rejected Lebed's claims. Russia's atomic energy ministry went so far as to dispute that suitcase nuclear weapons had even ever been developed by the Soviet Union. Later testimony however insinuated that the suitcase bombs had been under the control of the KGB and not the army or the atomic energy ministry, so they might not know of their existence. Russian president Vladimir Putin, in an interview with Barbara Walters in 2001, stated about suitcase nukes, "I don't really believe this is true. These are just legends. One can probably assume that somebody tried to sell some nuclear secrets. But there is no documentary confirmation of those developments."[citation needed]

The highest-ranking GRU defector Stanislav Lunev claimed that such Russian-made devices do exist and described them in more detail.[7] These devices, "identified as RA-115s (or RA-115-01s for submersible weapons)" weigh from fifty to sixty pounds. They can last for many years if wired to an electric source. In case there is a loss of power, there is a battery backup. If the battery runs low, the weapon has a transmitter that sends a coded message—either by satellite or directly to a GRU post at a Russian embassy or consulate.” According to Lunev, the number of "missing" nuclear devices (as found by General Lebed) "is almost identical to the number of strategic targets upon which those bombs would be used."[7]

Lunev suggested that suitcase nukes might be already deployed by the GRU operatives at the US soil to assassinate US leaders in the event of war.[7] He alleged that arms caches were hidden by the KGB in many countries for the planned terrorism acts. They were booby-trapped with "Lightning" explosive devices. One of such cache, which was identified by Vasili Mitrokhin, exploded when Swiss authorities tried to remove it from woods near Berne. Several others caches were removed successfully.[8] Lunev said that he had personally looked for hiding places for weapons caches in the Shenandoah Valley area[7] and that "it is surprisingly easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US" either across the Mexican border or using a small transport missile that can slip undetected when launched from a Russian airplane.[7] US Congressman Curt Weldon supported claims by Lunev but noted that Lunev had "exaggerated things" according to the FBI.[9] Searches of the areas identified by Lunev have been conducted, "but law-enforcement officials have never found such weapons caches, with or without portable nuclear weapons."[10]

[stannrodd]

It's still appears to be a pipe bomb in that picture .. but thanks for your lesson in micro nukes anyway. ;)

[macgyver1968]

From what I've read....there are very few in the 9/11 truth movement that believe in the micro nuke theory. No matter what the size of the nuke..there are certain characteristics of a nuclear explosion that simply don't exist at ground zero. No radiation, no EMP, no blinding flash...it's just silliness.

[luciferhorus]

It's still appears to be a pipe bomb in that picture .. but thanks for your lesson in micro nukes anyway. ;)

It is an alleged mock micro-nuclear device. Yes it is a pipe bomb of sorts, however in a pipe bomb the object of the pipe is to "blow up" due to the explosives inside the pipe and to scatter the pipe fragments like a grenade; in a nuclear device the purpose of the container (in this case a pipe) is to "contain" the explosion for a few milliseconds while small amounts of conventional explosive compress the two halves of the critical mass and hold them together long enough to achieve the conversion of a small amount of M (Mass) to E (energy) at which point the fragmentation of the pipe is entirely irrelevant, the purpose is not about scattering a few bits of pipe like a grenade, but the conversion of mass to energy, and in a weapon this needs to occur in a contained space, and in this case the device is in the shape of a cylinder (i.e, a pipe).

Always remember, don't try this at home by the way unless you inform your parents first, and remember also nuclear war and mass genocide should only be used for peaceful purposes and against governments who collaborate with the US state terrorists.

Experimentation with nuclear weapons can be hazardous to your health and harmful to trees, plants and your water supply.

Lux.

http://islandbreath.org/2007Year/17-peace&war/0717-07DUcartoon.jpg

http://blikk.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/depleted-uranium.jpg

[stannrodd]

Deformed children are common without the nuke attachment. I know this from personal experience as a parent.

Playing the guilt card doesn't impress me .. it saddens me to think you use images which are unrelated, to attempt to send a message.

It's a pipe bomb .. FACT

If there was a micro nuke used at GZ why was there no EMP or flash from the E=MC2 equivalance formula. There is always a flash of high energy radiation which includes the visible spectrum.

None was detected as far as I know, and if there was an EMP it should have shut down most of NYC telecommunications and most other electronic devices. This didn't happen.

Where is your discussion on these aspects .. ?

Stann

[rodin]

Deformed children are common without the nuke attachment. I know this from personal experience as a parent.

Playing the guilt card doesn't impress me .. it saddens me to think you use images which are unrelated, to attempt to send a message.

It's a pipe bomb .. FACT

If there was a micro nuke used at GZ why was there no EMP or flash from the E=MC2 equivalance formula. There is always a flash of high energy radiation which includes the visible spectrum.

None was detected as far as I know, and if there was an EMP it should have shut down most of NYC telecommunications and most other electronic devices. This didn't happen.

Where is your discussion on these aspects .. ?

Stann

Modern tactical nukes may be very different from your mental image of what you think they were.

1) they might never have existed anyway
2) modern nukes can be much cleaner and designer
3) certain post-nuke effects were found after 911 despite a massive clean and cover up

This thread is re-inventing the wheel somewhat. My research goes further down the same lines

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=100590

[ultima1]

No radiation, no EMP, no blinding flash...it's just silliness.

Actually their was radiation reported, but the EPA blamed it on Depleted Uranium from the planes.

Only problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

[edelweiss pirate]

Deformed children are common without the nuke attachment. I know this from personal experience as a parent.

Playing the guilt card doesn't impress me .. it saddens me to think you use images which are unrelated, to attempt to send a message.

It's a pipe bomb .. FACT

If there was a micro nuke used at GZ why was there no EMP or flash from the E=MC2 equivalance formula. There is always a flash of high energy radiation which includes the visible spectrum.

None was detected as far as I know, and if there was an EMP it should have shut down most of NYC telecommunications and most other electronic devices. This didn't happen.

Where is your discussion on these aspects .. ?

Stann



No flash, not if it was underground. There were off the charts seismic readings though.

[ultima1]

Actually their was radiation reported, but the EPA blamed it on Depleted Uranium from the planes.

Only problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

[macgyver1968]

Actually their was radiation reported, but the EPA blamed it on Depleted Uranium from the planes.

Only problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

Source?

[ultima1]

Source?



http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/radioactive-NewYork.html
From: "Leuren Moret" <leurenmoret@yahoo.com:


On Sept. 11, I called a medical doctor who lives 7 miles from the Pentagon and warned her that DU could have burned in the hijacked jets that crashed (up to 3000 pounds were used in 747's). She turned on her gamma meter - radiation levels were 8 times higher than normal inside her house. She informed the Nuclear Information ResourceService in Washington DC[Phone: 202-328-0002], and the EPA, FBI, HazMat and other emergency response gencies went to the Pentagon to investigate.
A pile of rubble from the crash was radioactive, but the EPA rep said "oh... it's probably depleted uranium... it's not a health hazard unless you breathe it". Firefighters, Pentagon personel, and communities nearby DID BREATHE IT. There was no followup investigation, and what about the World Trade Center in NY? Radiation almost never gets into the media. It is a taboo subject.


From: "Dr. H. D. Sharma"
<hdsharma@golden.net>[Physicist]

It does not matter whether the planes that hit the World-Trade Towers and the Pentagon have DU or not as long as DU does not catch fire. If DU catches fire -- most likely it will just like in the case of the El-Al plane that caught fire outside Amsterdam
(Netherland), it will form aerosols of uranium dioxide. Inhalation of the aerosols can be harmful to human health depending on the quantity inhaled.

The presence of aerosols can be checked with the help of a simple radiation survey meter. Such meters are readily available and the site near the Towers should be checked for gamma-ray emitters as soon as possible. If you do not see any radiation from adioisotopes of thorium-234 and protoactinium-234, you are fairly certain that no DU has become airborne and it is unlikely to be harmful to human health.
Hari Sharma.

[edelweiss pirate]

Maybe I sound naive but why in hell do they need to use 3000 pounds of radioactive material in airplanes.....

Hey God, we have a slight problem down here, can you come down and get rid of these maniacs running the world please.


We'd do it ourselves but you said 'thou shalt not kill' so we're a bit stuck.

[macgyver1968]

Maybe I sound naive but why in hell do they need to use 3000 pounds of radioactive material in airplanes.....



I'm with you on this one EP....Depleted uranium makes good bullets because it's so dense and heavy...Not really something you want in an airplane, where weight reduction is key. I need to do a little research on this.

Edit: apparently they are used as trim weights in some aircraft...but haven't been used since the 80's.

[ultima1]

Maybe I sound naive but why in hell do they need to use 3000 pounds of radioactive material in airplanes.....

I'm with you on this one EP....Depleted uranium makes good bullets because it's so dense and heavy...Not really something you want in an airplane, where weight reduction is key. I need to do a little research on this.
.


It was used as counterweights because of being so dense and heavy, but was replaced in the newer 747s, 757 and 767 and later planes with Tungsten.

About 30 seconds of research will show this.

[edelweiss pirate]

It was used as counterweights because of being so dense and heavy, but was replaced in the newer 747s, 757 and 767 and later planes with Tungsten.

About 30 seconds of research will show this.

Thank you very much.

[ultima1]

Thank you very much.

Not a problem.

But it still remains a mystery as to why the EPA would state that the radiation came from the planes when anyone knowing aircraft or doing a few minutes of research will show the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

[stannrodd]

A micro nuke "FLASH" and "EMP" would have been widely reported and damage done to almost all electronic goods in the vicinity.

The foundations of WTC towers were not buried deep underground. ..

Read some history of the reclaimed land from the Hudson River etc..

:eek:

[ellis_deatrip]

Don't recall where I cut and saved this from(maybe here?), nukes or something else. but some valid questions nonetheless....
Do any of us really know the affects of nuclear weapon detonation?

Verifiable WTC Evidence that cannot be Explained by Thermite-huggers such as Steven E Jones, Richard Gage et al...



1) The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain by a free fall speed "collapse."

2) They underwent mid-air pulverization and were turned to dust before they hit the ground.

3) The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers.

4) The rail lines, the tunnels and most of the rail cars had only light damage, if any.

5) The WTC underground mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends. There were reports that "The Gap" was looted.

6) The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on a comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition.

7) The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up.

8) The demolition of WTC7 was whisper quiet and the seismic signal was not significantly greater than background noise.

9) The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

10) The upper 90 percent, approximately, of the inside of WTC7 was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth.

11) One file cabinet with folder dividers survived.

12) No toilets survived or even recognizable portions of one.

13) Windows of nearby buildings had circular and other odd-shaped holes in them.

14) In addition to the odd window damage, the marble facade was completely missing from around WFC1 and WFC2 entry, with no other apparent structural damage.

15) Fuzzballs, evidence that the dust continued to break down and become finer and finer.

16) Truckloads of dirt were hauled in and hauled out of the WTC site, a pattern that continues to this day.

17) Fuming of the dirt pile. Fuming decreased when watered, contrary to fumes caused by fire or heat.

18) Fuzzyblobs, a hazy cloud that appeared to be around material being destroyed.

19) The Swiss-Cheese appearance of steel beams and glass.

20) Evidence of molecular dissociation and transmutation, as demonstrated by the near-instant rusting of affected steel.
21) Weird fires. The appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.

22) Lack of high heat. Witnesses reported that the initial dust cloud felt cooler than ambient temperatures. No evidence of burned bodies.

23) Columns were curled around a vertical axis like rolled-up carpets, where overloaded buckled beams should be bent around the horizontal axis.

24) Office paper was densely spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side cars that appeared to be burning.

25) Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust, and into Vesey Street in front of WTC6, plus a cylindrical arc was cut into Bankers Trust.

26) All planes except top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes (120 seconds) after WTC 1 had been destroyed.

27) Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways, during the destruction of the Twin Towers.

28) The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub and adjacent buildings.

29) More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process than from the destruction of more than a million tons of buildings above it.

30) Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged and destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix.

31) The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared.

32) For more than seven years, regions in the ground under where the main body of WTC4 stood have continued to fume.

33) The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.

34) The WTC7 rubble pile was too small for the total mass of the building and consisted of a lot of mud.

35) Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball, electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, and the sound of explosions.
36) Eyewitness testimony of Scott-pak explosions in fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC.

37) There were many flipped cars in the neighborhood of the WTC complex near trees with full foliage.

38) Magnetometer readings in Alaska recorded abrupt shifts in the earth's magnetic field with each of the events at the WTC on 9/11.

39) Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map, even though that portion of the Atlantic Ocean was shown on the map.

40) Sillystring, the appearance of curious cork-screw trails.
41) Uncanny similarities with the Hutchison Effect, where the Hutchison Effect exhibits all of the same phenomena listed above.


* Is it possible that such a technology exist?
Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and lasers in 1955*, commercial and military development of directed-energy technology has proceeded apace, so use of directed-energy technology is likely to exist -- and the data tells us it does exist.

[ultima1]

But it still remains a mystery as to why the EPA would state that the radiation came from the planes when anyone knowing aircraft or doing a few minutes of research will show the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

[edelweiss pirate]

Don't recall where I cut and saved this from(maybe here?), nukes or something else. but some valid questions nonetheless....
Do any of us really know the affects of nuclear weapon detonation?

No, there was an immense seismic reading, some few minutes before the towers collapsed.

Something BIG happened in the basement.


Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11
Submitted by pfgetty on Tue, 06/08/2010 - 6:44am Andre Rousseaucontrolled demolitionSeismic signalsWTC collapse
A New Study of the Seismic Signals on September 11, 2001 in New York
André Rousseau
Reopen911.info
Fri, 04 Jun 2010 03:44 EDT

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/209899-A-New-Study-of-the-Seismic-Signals-on-September-11-2001-in-New-York
Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11, according to geophysicist André Rousseau (*)
Doctor André Rousseau, former researcher in geophysics at CNRS and specialist in sound waves, presents us with the results of his analysis of the seismic signals recorded on September 11, 2001 in New York and gives his point of view as a specialist on the question of the destruction of the three towers at the World Trade Center.

[Translated from the original French by SOTT.net]

Seismic signals were recorded on September 11 2001 during the period when the North and South Towers (respectively WTC1 and WTC2) were penetrated and collapsed, as well as during the collapse of Building 7 of the WTC (also known as WTC7), a building which had not been hit by a plane.

Among the seismic data published on this subject, it is the Palisades recording station, located 34 km north-east of Manhattan, which gives us the data most apt for analysis, particularly for determining their source. These wave graphs are taken from the publications of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), as shown in figure 1 and figure 2.

Seismologists are puzzled in their analysis of signals recorded at this time, as the contradictions are significant. They are particularly intrigued by the presence of seismic "peaks" before the collapses (see figure 4). This text focuses on the study of seismic signals and aims to demonstrate that consistency only appears once we leave the official version of events. It gives rise to a new interpretation that renders the assertions of the "official version" null and void.

[url]




The local magnitudes (ML) that the seismologists calculated from the surface waves gave results that consolidate our analysis. Effectively, on the Richter scale, they were higher than 2 for the waves emitted at the moment of the collapse. It is impossible to get such a magnitude only from the falling of the debris, more especially over a duration of ten seconds!! Even if the entire tower had been compacted into a tight ball, it would have necessitated the speed of a meteorite, in any case, more than that caused by the Earth's gravity, to even approach such a magnitude!! Moreover, we must note that the magnitude attributed to the subterranean explosion at the WTC1 is ML=2.3 - comparable to the earthquake that hit New York January 17, 2001 (ML=2.4) - while the magnitude coming from the WTC2 explosion is ML=2.1, thus weaker, and this disparity - consistent with the explosions described - is particularly appreciable in this logarithmic scale. Given the Twin Towers were of similar height and mass, the falling debris should have generated similar magnitudes, if they were the source of the waves...

[luciferhorus]

Deformed children are common without the nuke attachment. I know this from personal experience as a parent.

Playing the guilt card doesn't impress me .. it saddens me to think you use images which are unrelated, to attempt to send a message.



The use of nuclear weapons by the US state terrorists is hardly unrelated to the events of 911 which were carried out by the US state terrorists.

I am neither a phsycist nor a medical expert but there is widespread scientific opinion that the dumping of several thousand tons of depleted uranium on Iraq and Afghanistan does have a relationship to birth defects, cancer, death and indeed to what is referred to as "Gulf War Syndrome." Indeed depleted uranium weapons appear to have been designed with depopulation in mind; it is a gift that stays for 1000's of years, pollutes the water supply and irradiates agricultural land.

With regards to "guilt" I am entirely aware that those who collaborate with and defend US state terrorism do not feel "guilt" otherwise they would not take the positions they do; Capitalist state terrorism is very much an "ends justifies the means" ideology, as is my own Communist ideology. Despite my years of support for violent resistance against the Anglo-American state terrorists, whenever I hear of the deaths of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan I rejoice and contemplate the millions of martyrs and victims of Anglo-American state terrorism and imperialism over the years. This of course is just foreplay for the eventual nuclear retaliation which will inevitably ensue until the last of their kind is eradicated forever from the face of the earth and from under the earth.

http://1984usa.com/higherlearning/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/depleted-uranium_2005.jpg



It's a pipe bomb .. FACT

Contradiction is a poor excuse for argument.


If there was a micro nuke used at GZ why was there no EMP or flash from the E=MC2 equivalance formula. There is always a flash of high energy radiation which includes the visible spectrum.

None was detected as far as I know, and if there was an EMP it should have shut down most of NYC telecommunications and most other electronic devices. This didn't happen.
Where is your discussion on these aspects .. ?

It seems to me that the evidence suggests that the US state terrorists did "not" use a micro-nuke as there would be a very specific signature and evidence of this, so it is not really my argument; anyway the argument and evidence which points to 911 being a "controlled demolition" and a black military operation by the US state terrorists does not depend on the 911 nuke theory.

Verifiable WTC Evidence that cannot be Explained by Thermite-huggers such as Steven E Jones, Richard Gage et al...


Yes I concede that there are many "mysterious" aspects to the demolition which require explanation. Since we know that the US state terrorists have a poured trillions into the military research over the years I think we can say that it is a fact that they have developed many different types of "secret weapons," however it has been "established" beyond doubt that thermate was used at the WTC; as to whether other types of weapons were used, while it is entirely likely, it is still speculative.


Lux

[stannrodd]

Not a problem.

But it still remains a mystery as to why the EPA would state that the radiation came from the planes when anyone knowing aircraft or doing a few minutes of research will show the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

The commercial passenger versions of 757 and 767 did not have DU counter weights but if the plane was a 767 tanker variant would it perhaps have DU counter weights considering it's quite different loading and flap requirements on takeoff and landing. Just throwing it into the mix because of the often claimed tanker in UA colours doing the deed.

The common assumption is that only 747's had the DU counterweights.

[ultima1]

The common assumption is that only 747's had the DU counterweights.

Actually Boeing stopped using DU on all of its aircraft.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html
“Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747,” Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing’s 767, told AFP. “Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective.”

The only possible way i can see DU being at the crash sites is if their was DU being carried in the luggage holds.

[bryan]

Just throwing it into the mix because of the often claimed tanker in UA colours doing the deed.

Just throwing idiotic speculation into the mix to confuse the issue.

[stannrodd]

Did my post confuse you bryan .. oh that's right you're a no planer so I guess talking about planes does confuse you.

Stann :)