It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11.

page: 25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 05:12 AM
William Tahil USGS report analysis.

Firstly, I am not convinced by W. Tahill that either a neutron-nuke or a secret reactor under the towers was the cause of the lock-stepped decay products.

Page 102 : The central core of the WTC consisted of 47 rectangular steel box columns. These measured 36 by 90 centimeters and had a wall-thickness of 10 cm (LT : 4 inch) at the base, tapering to 6 cm (LT : 2.5 inch) at the top (400 meters above).

That answers skeptics who doubt that the core columns were having same dimensions. They had, except that their plate thickness tapered thinner from bottom to top floors.

Page 93 : Misc. seismic notes :
Spike Amplitude

The highest amplitude of seismic waves detected occurred at the beginning of the seismic signature, arising from nowhere. This amplitude peak is 20 times as high as the rest of the seismic signature.
The energy in a wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude. Therefore, this peak pulse contained 400 times as much energy as the other energy pulses recorded. --snip--
But for a building falling like this, if a noticeable seismic wave was produced, we would see the seismic wave build up to a crescendo as more and more rubble hit the ground and then tail off over some period of time. We would not see the strongest impact right at the beginning and then see it fall off.
The conversion efficiency of m.g.h - that's potential energy - is very inefficient, even if we had a controlled experiment set up in the laboratory dropping a steel block onto the bench to then measure the acoustic energy produced. Only an infinitesimal portion of that “potential” could be expected to be converted into seismic or acoustic waves. It is not credible that the impact of the buildings falling on the ground could produce such enormous seismic spikes at the beginning that are 400 times as energetic as the other waves recorded. The key point is - what energy source that lasted 5 to 6 seconds produced these two seismic pulses of local Richter magnitude M (L) 2.1and 2.3? The seismograms recorded at Lamont-Doherty have exactly the same pattern as underground nuclear blasts.

Why not a thermobaric bomb devices, exploding pattern?

To get you eventually doubting again my points against a nuclear blast, the nuke proponents did bring in the neutron bomb scenario, with 95% less, directly afterwards radiation remnants.
But, still those pesky neutrons, gentlemen.! And a lot more than for standard fission bombs.
So, how did those survivors in Stairwell B missed that central core proposed, enormous neutron shower?

My proposal of the use by 911-planners of thermobaric bombs, is still standing firm, against all opposition.
Additional advantage for using them :
No measurable or viewable traces in that huge debris pile, since the main ingredients are gaseous, that spread immediately in the hot, rising air from their own explosions.

And TB's fit exactly in the video evidence : huge billowing explosive clouds of whitish smoke and dust.
Spitting out at all four sides per exploding floor, in a very specific in a nearly perfect horizontal downward cadence. No chaotic destruction, as expected for a NATURALLY occurring collapse. Floor by floor.

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 05:52 AM

Page 94 : The Seismographic Evidence
4.6 Summary
We summarize here the key points:
1. The timescale of the impulsive event which produced the seismic waves was of the same order as an explosion, 5 to 6 seconds.
2. The seismogram itself is identical with that produced by an underground explosion and the time scale was similar.
3. The Surface Waves produced were High Frequency Waves, typical of an explosion and similar to those produced by a quarry blast or seismic surveying charge, not the Low Frequency Waves associated with an impact.
4. The source of the seismic energy was at or not far below the surface.
5. Collapsing rubble is an impact source that would produce Low Frequency Surface Waves, not the High Frequency Waves detected that are typical of an explosion.
6. Another explosion in the vicinity, at a Newark petroleum depot did produce P and S Body Waves. But the 1993 explosion under the WTC did not produce any measurable P or S Body Waves. The collapse of the WTC on 9th September 2001 did not produce any measurable P or S Body Waves. This is consistent with the lack of P or S Body Waves in 1993 and we therefore have an explanation for why the Newark explosion did produce Body Waves but the WTC collapse explosions did not.
7. The towers had insufficient Potential Energy to produce seismic waves of the intensity detected.
8. The large spikes of M(L) 2.3 and 2.1 are equivalent to at least 2 to 5 tonnes of TNT with good coupling and definitely much more at the WTC, maybe tens of tonnes of TNT, given the already known poor coupling of an explosion in the WTC basement cavity to the surrounding earth.
9. Five other impulsive seismic events were measured by the observatory between 08:46 and 11:30. What was their source?

4.7 Conclusion
To conclude, the seismograms of the seismic waves produced by the WTC collapse are consistent with the hypothesis that they were produced by a nuclear explosion. By themselves, they show that a very large underground explosion took place. The only seismic waves detected from the WTC on the 9th September 2001 were High Frequency Surface Waves. These can only be produced by an explosion. It would not be possible to say whether that was a nuclear explosion without other evidence, but we can say it would have had to have had a TNT equivalence of at least 5 tonnes. Indeed, it must have been much more, due to the known poor coupling between explosions and the ground at the WTC site. The effect of this much TNT on a concrete structure would be to pulverize it into dust and gravel. This will be discussed in a later section.

I do not agree with the by me underlined sentence from the author.
Dr Brown proved in his OKC report, that any explosives COUPLED to columns, will result in much higher amplitudes on a seismogram, then the resulting collapse of all the weight of those remnants, recorded of the clean-up of the remnants of the OKC bombing in 1995, 4 weeks after the terrorist attack. And those real terrorists have still not been caught.

Thus, it's far more logical to expect explosives (of any kind) to have been attached to the core columns in the f a i l i n g regions of the Twin Towers.
Because that's EXACTLY what we saw in the collapse videos. The 97-98 floor of the North Tower 1 were the first ones to FAIL. Not the basements or lowest floors. And these 2 floors were just recently burning.!
And then the destruction raced down those towers : Top-down demolitions.

For WTC 7 it was a standard bottom first demolition, they blew out 7 to 8 floors worth of columns and beams and girders, then the top 40 floors fell through no resistance in free fall for 2.3 secs, and then hammered down on the lowest floors and the bed rock, instantly decelerating with immense forces which crumbled the lowest floors of those 40 first, that's why the experts call these : Bottom-up demolitions.

My hypothesis : it were TB's. They have near nuclear bomb power impact. And one to a few seconds, longer lasting effects. Thus, they instantaneous tilt up and press down the top and bottom floor, while their gaseous contents are exploding inside that space. Breaking all bolds and welds, as can be seen in all photos from exterior perimeter and interior core columns their end parts connections.
And their gaseous evidence spits out at all four sides as whitish gas and dust clouds. Dust from the finely compressed concrete floor-decks and gypsum interior walls.

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 05:55 AM

Page 95 and 96 : --snip-- The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31. However, the Palisades seismic record shows that -as the collapses began- a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.--snip--

Read all the text on these two pages, it's very relevant to huge explosions coupled to core columns, either in the basements (which I do not believe in) at collapse initiation, or high up, at the level of the first steel column failures. Which were strangely enough, not at the bottom of the impact damages, but in the just newly burning, top floors of those. So how could fire damage cause those columns to fail, when those fires just had reached those floors, a few minutes ago. And those floors had 95% of their original fire insulation still firmly in place....
IT DOES NOT FIT into the Official Story. AT ALL.

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 05:59 AM

Page 116 : By his (Cahill’s) assessment, the superheated core of the building, buried under a giant pile of rubble with little to no oxygen, created a pressure cooker that broiled the concrete, glass, computers and everything else into infinitesimally small particles that were exuded in a gassy, lingering haze.

That's professor Cahill, from University of California at Davis, one of the leading aerosol specialists in the world. What he describes in essence is a huge "charcoal pit", like we can find in South and Middle American, African and SE-Asian jungles and wood lands. Where the locals make charcoal by making a round hole in the ground, fill it up with cut fresh and dry wood from tree branches and stems, cover that with clay, let it dry and then make a small opening at the bottom and one at the top, ignite the wood snips inside and let it broil for weeks. When they open it again, all the wood is charcoaled in those oxygen starved pits.

Page 119 : "If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?"
Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said,
"That's the $64,000 question."

Charles M. Beck answered that question for him. Core columns could not have naturally buckled and/or severed as the first failure event, by the load of the top section alone.
After that pack of explosives, a natural collapse could start. Still, the planners had no faith that it would progress naturally all the way to the ground, and added a row of TB's to it.
Of course they had years of planning, to find out how strong these towers really were, so they opted for the whole BOOOOMM packet.

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:02 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

I should have said "missile" rather than nuke. I'm not denying what happened was an inside job, just that the more complicated we make it the less likely the mass populous will listen.

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 09:35 AM
Source article May 1, 2013, at VT, by Don Fox, Jeff Prager and Ed Ward, MD.

Since it is a principle (law) of materials science that an explosive can destroy a material only if it has a detonation velocity equal to or greater than the speed of sound in that material, where the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s and in steel 6,100 m/s, while the highest detonation velocity that has been attributed to nano-thermite is 895 m/s, it should be obvious: You can’t get there from there!

The highest detonation velocity that has been attributed to Thermobaric Bombs is ~20,000 m/s.
Thus, TBs can easily shatter concrete and steel. If close enough. Since its velocity bleeds off quickly by increasing distance. But even then, they will easily lift up whole composite floor areas, shearing off all bolts and welds in the floor seats welded to the columns, but also at the 3 floor-high their top and bottom column ends, in the blink of an eye.
That's why you only see cleanly separated 3 floor high core columns laying on and in the WTC rubble photos and videos. No horizontally cut columns. Only standard factory lengths.

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:03 AM
Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini Nukes were used on the WTC towers. By Steven Jones :

Page 7 : A note on pulverization.
Along with others, I examined the sample obtained by Janette MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower. The windows of her apartment were blown in during the
collapse of this tower on 9/11/2001, and her apartment was filled with dust and debris. She collected a sample of this material in her own apartment in a plastic bag – which is good procedure – and the chain of custody went directly from her to me. (In the presence of other researchers, I collected more samples from her large plastic bag, while visiting in her home.)
As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces
of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder
(as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.

Which is another strong indicator for TBs, which will shatter concrete and even steel if exploded close enough, but will not change all of it to fine dust. Since its destructive power bleeds off rapidly with distance from the explosive center. Which is of course a much wider space for TBs than for f.ex. RDX filled cutter charges with DU or Pu linings (instead of the standard copper linings) A standard cutter charge will evaporate the copper lining instantaneous into a thin sphere of white hot copper plasma, which will cut as butter through thick steel, if the charge is coupled by tape or wire to the steel, to fit it tightly to it.
So, imagine the much heavier DU (atomic weight ~18.7) or Pu (Plutonium) lining's cutter power.

A TB cutter charge does not need to fit tightly to the steel of f.ex. a core column, its container is then made in a disc form, to let the gaseous cloud shape itself into a thin discus-like shape with an explosive front speed of ~20,000 meter per second, which will easily cut any steel in its path.
Such a cutter TB container must be situated inside the 47 core columns space, f.ex on top of an elevator car, or attached in between the floor and underlaying ceiling of the core area.
Several ones per floor would do the job of suddenly cutting all of the 47 core columns.
As for example at floor 97-98 in the North Tower, a moment before collapse start.

Why TBs instead of standard cutter charges?
1. No need to bind them closely onto a column.
2. No traces afterwards, since the active cutter power comes from gases and/or powdered chemicals, forms of aluminum salts or DU for example.
3. Very easy to camouflage, and can be painted in the same colors as their surrounding, so it seems as if they are part of the construction. Most of the time they are cylindrical, like a paint can. Discus shaped is another example (the steel cutter variety).

I still think they opted for the BRUTE scenario. The "Keep it simple" pathway.
Just explode a few big TBs per 3 or so floors, in the core area, and that immense force will uplift the upper floor and press down the lower floor, thus shearing all bolds and welds from the column ends and the beam and girder seats, and thus shearing off the welds and bolts that connected each 3 stories high core-column piece to the next ones. That's why they found all these standard plant-manufactured, 3 stories high length of core columns, shattered all over and in the debris piles.
You don't see any cut column ends, only clean sheared off bolts and welds, which is not normal for a natural collapse. There you'd expect lots of bended ends, or irregular sheared off ends.

That given, is a very clear evidence that no standard cutter charges were used. Or they suppressed all photos from cut columns, which seems to me a tad bit too much wishful thinking.

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:19 AM
So then, where came these remnants from DU from, if no DU cutters were used.?

Dr Steven Jones, a nuclear science and muon-catalyzed fusion specialist, thinks it's not possible that mini nukes were used, and I tend to agree with him, based on a few of his strongest arguments :

1. Neutron activation not observed.

Page 6-7 : All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high-energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials, as the neutrons penetrate building materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided. Much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades. Moreover, the fall-out from even small nuclear weapons is highly radioactive. So we measure the level of radioactivity as proof (or disproof) of the use of nuclear bombs.
Several months ago, I tested WTC dust samples (from an apartment at 113 Liberty Street, NYC [1]) and a solidified metal sample (from the Clarkson University WTC monument [1]) for
radioactivity using a Geiger counter. (Daedalon Corp., model EN-15.)
I found ZERO RADIOACTIVITY (meaning nothing above background).
This experimental evidence goes strongly against the mini-nukes hypothesis since measured radioactivity was simply at background levels.

Dr Jones follows up with measuring a fused-sand sample from the 1945 nuclear test grounds in New Mexico, which still radiates in copious amounts. But not so dangerous anymore as in 1945.
He also measured WTC steel and the result was no higher than normal background radiation.
Thus, there were no copious amounts of neutrons expelled in the WTC collapses.
In fact, none measurable.

2. Mere trace amounts of Iodine-131 (produced in fission reactions) found
in Hudson River sediments

Page 5 : Iodine concentrations were LESS in the upper debris layers associated with the WTC dust! And Iodine-131 ( produced in fission reactions ) was only found in very low-level trace amounts anyway. These data provide strong evidence against “mini-nuke-caused-WTC-destruction” hypothesis involving fission reactions, including a “small” fission bomb to set-off a fusion bomb.

Still, the same researchers found that "" the top 3 cm of silt contained layers with unnaturally high concentrations of copper, strontium, and zinc from the towers, says Sarah D. Oktay, a geochemist."" (Page 4)
And most Iodine traces in dust that fell in the river will be leached out by Hudson River water very fast. This could be proved fast by looking at other radionuclides that solvate easy in water.
Those dust sediment samples should for these also show very low amounts.
If so, the above argument by Dr Jones is falsifiable.

3. Tritiated water tests:

Page 2 : Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANO curies per liter. (A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie. That is a very tiny amount of radioactivity.) A major fusion reaction in hydrogen bombs is
deuterium + tritium  Helium + neutron.
Many millions of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb.
(Note that tritium can be generated during the blast from the reaction of neutrons on lithium deuteride.)
Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were minuscule, in the billionth parts of ONE curie range.

Note that “atomic” or fission bombs, are based on the fissioning of heavy elements such as uranium and plutonium, rather than the fusing together of light hydrogen isotopes ( such as deuterium and tritium ) in the hydrogen or fusion bomb. But to date, all known hydrogen bomb-explosions have been started (“ignited”) by fission bombs. Our technology is not yet sufficient to have a “pure” fusion device of any significant size. We struggle to ignite small d-t pellets in a laser-bombardment environment.
(LT : d-t = tritiated deuterium)
Indeed, this problem of igniting the fusion reaction explains why we do not yet have hydrogen-fusion reactors producing power. Furthermore, the fission-fusion bomb is designed to release enormous amounts of energy by combining effects from fission and fusion -- see, for example, .

There is no evidence whatsoever that the military has developed in secret any kind of direct fusion bombs, without fission triggers. If they did so, they would have solved the oil and green energy problems instantaneous, and thus eradicated all the "need" for all these wars.
It is highly illogical that one person involved, would not spill the beans in that case.

Some if not a lot of the top armies brass would however like to keep such a development, a secret, since the whole need for large standing armies would be gone, overnight. And for some of these people, war seems a hobby, instead of a last case resort.
That megalomaniac urge would also be gone, when you force them to be the first ones at the battlefront, as it used to be, thousands of years ago. Alexander the Great stood side by side to his troops in most battles.


posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:26 AM
4. Radioactive isotopes.

Page 6 : These very low levels of radioactive isotopes (radionuclides) in the WTC
dust are by themselves sufficient to rule out the use of atomic bombs
(even as triggers) at the WTC, which could be construed as an absurd
notion as it confronts the empirical facts.

The persons that write about these subjects at VT (Veterans Today) think otherwise :

Open Letter to Steve Jones Hard Evidence supports the 911 Mini Nuke Hypothesis.
.“Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11″.

I still find their arguments not compelling enough.
Their only arguments that makes me wonder, is the lock-stepped appearance of these isotopes.
There can be multiple reasons for that, not ONLY atomic bombs, fission or fusion bombs, nukes, H-Bombs, mini-nukes, whatever they call it.
I mentioned one already, other ones are contaminated cement, or openly/secretly stashed radioactive materials in some government or private offices or basements in the WTC complex.

The first sentences of VT their Letter to Steve Jones could be read just as easy like mine :

My hypothesis is that World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2 were demolished by a series of very powerful devices, called Thermobaric Bombs (TBs) that were planted inside the center columns area of the buildings and detonated sequentially from top to bottom and configured or directed to explode upward in order to simulate a free fall collapse. And at the same time break all bolts and welds that held the ends of all core columns together.

A TB or series of TBs were possibly also detonated in the basement of WTC 6 or in all its center floors, but the holes through all its center floors could just as easily have been formed when a substantial part of WTC1N fell on its roof, and slashed through all those center floors. We see in the North Tower collapse videos, a few very big chunks of perimeter column packets being expelled in an arc in the direction of WTC 6.

See for a comprehensive explanation of Dr. Jones' arguments, his "Conclusion and a challenge".

To conclude, for many soldiers and ex-soldiers, this is a good read, and really read then first Sam's chapter "SHAME", about a REAL soldier.
."Confessions", by Sam Cohen, father of the Neutron Bomb.
Sam says to abandon the massive kill type of huge nuclear bombs in a few stocks, and fall back to much smaller ones and stock these more spread.

Basically it's always a few types in power who want to go to war with a few types on the other side, and both don't bother how many casualties will be lost, as long as they survive.
Next year, 2016, ONE percent of the population of EARTH will have just as much as the other NINETY-NINE percent. (They have 50% of our total global wealth then).

How can you vote these kind of greedy egomaniacs in power, again and again?
It's your last chance to reconsider your locked up opinions on how exactly the world in reality functions.
They don't have your advantage as their goal.....they only want to keep a tight balance between their greed and your minimum acceptable wages. So you just....don't start a revolution.

posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:40 AM
Veterans Today : standard level would be 20 TUs– the high of quoted standard background levels.

(LT : TU = Tritium, TU; see graph with levels of TU in Ottawa rain. Up to 1948 background radiation of Tritium, TU was below 10 TU = ~30 pCi / Liter or 0.030 nCi / Liter.

1 TU = 3.231 pCi/L (pico = trillionths of a curie per liter) or 0.003231 nCi/L (nano = billionths of a curie per liter.
Btw, that's 3 point 231 pCi / L, not 3 comma 231. For non English calculating members.
""Background radiation dose averages 3,100 microsievert (or 3.1 millisievert) per year and a chest x ray effective radiation dose is about 100 microsievert. "" Source :
The Sievert (Sv) is the international system (SI) unit for dose equivalent equal to 1 Joule/kilogram. The sievert has replaced the rem. One sievert is equivalent to 100 rem.
0.05 Sievert is the yearly dose set by the NRC.
The Sievert is a dose equivalent, while the Gray (Gy) is an absorbed dose, a deterministic equivalent)

Ed Ward, MD co-writer at VT : (LT : I added a decimal comma to make clear for Europeans if it is thousands or single units; f.ex. 3,000.0 and 3.0, note the comma and the dot. )
Ed : 5. Let’s calculate the proven referenced facts. Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium = 3,530.0 pCi/L (+/- 170 pCi/L, but we will use the mean of 3,530.0 pCi/L). 3,530.0 pCi/L (the referenced lab value) divided by the background level of 20 TUs (20 X 3.231 p (1 TU = 3.21 pCi/L) = 64.62 pCi/L as the high normal background/standard level. 3,530.0 divided by 64.62 pCi/L = 54.63 TIMES THE NORMAL BACKGROUND LEVEL. 3,530.0 pCi/L divided by 3.231 pCi/L (1 TU) = 1,092.54 TUs.

(LT : But, Ed, that's still TRACES compared to the Tritium levels we have to expect after 2 or 3 by fission started and in fusion ended Hydrogen bomb explosions, inside that 100 acres WTC area. In that case, not some billionTH parts of ONE curie, but MILLIONS of curies. )

Dr Steven Jones :
Page 3 : The graphs below show that hydrogen-bomb testing boosted tritium levels in rain by several orders of magnitude.

(LT : From under 10 TU before 1948 when hydrogen bomb testing began, to 1000 TU in 1955, both tested in Ottawa rain. That's several orders, from single units, under 10, through tens of units to 100, through hundreds of units, to 1000 units. But it are still TRACES.
It would be deadly to the whole of humanity if those levels would be far higher...luckily we are talking here about immensely DILUTED, minuscule quantities PER LITER RAIN WATER in Ottawa, Canada; contaminated by hydrogen bomb tests in the atmosphere, from thousands of kilometers away (New Mexico, the Pacific Islands, Kazakhstan, Lop Noll West-China, Pakistan, India. ).

Page 2 : Dr Jones : Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter. (A nanocurie = nCi, 1 billionth of a curie. That is a very tiny amount of radioactivity.) --snip--
Many millionS of curies of tritium are present in even a small thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb.--snip-- Yet the observed tritium levels at GZ were in the billionTH of ONE curie range.

(LT : A few billionTH parts of ONE curie, thus, do NOT misread as billionS ).

Page 6 : Dr Jones : Results. We found only background levels of alpha radionuclide activity by liquid scintillation counter analysis of all three samples. Beta activity was slightly elevated, but not more than twice the background level. There were no levels of gamma activity (> = higher than) > 1 Bq/g except for naturally occurring potassium-40.

(LT : The problem with the VT authors not understanding the arguments of Dr Jones is a simple one. They forget to keep the big picture in view.
Fukushima, Chernobyl : Huge amounts of radiating isotopes blown in the atmosphere, and then DILUTED by high winds, while that plume travels around the world 16 times in a few months already. Ask yourself : How far is Ottawa from the New Mexico test sites? A few thousands of kilometer, how much dilution at work?
And over thousands of kilometers, not hundreds of meters as at the WTC rain and groundwater sampling spots...!!!

The quantities the USGS found, are still TRACE amounts, definitely not evidence of tritium spitting hydrogen "mini" bombs. Which I highly doubt exist at all, only bigger ones, designed for maximum devastation, read Sam Cohen's life story I linked to.

Dr Jones quoted at VT : All nuclear weapons (especially FUSION/Hydrogen bombs) release copious high- energy neutrons which will activate steel and other materials, as the neutrons penetrate building materials. This is called neutron activation and cannot be avoided. Much of the induced radioactivity remains for decades.

Arguments from VT : The devices used at the WTC on 9/11 were likely neutron bombs etc.

(LT : ANY neutrons emitting bomb will activate the WTC steel. Sam Cohen talked about the near absence of airborne radionuclides (95% less than fission bombs) when he said ""there will be no lingering radioactivity from the neutron bomb.""
Because they were meant to explode high in the air, not at or near ground level as at the WTC grounds.

(LT : Another blanket remark from VT : ""For an example, Iron is expected to have the Fe (58) isotope, which contains two additional neutrons, 0.28% naturally, but somehow there were 1.63% of these heavier, but still stable iron isotopes in the WTC sample.""
From their own list :
""Iron Naturally occurring :56 Fe 91.72%, 57 Fe 2.2%, 58 Fe 0.28% At WTC : 1.63%""
That's for 57 + 58 Fe together : 2.48%, naturally isotopes occurrence, so what's wrong with that 1.63% found?

VT : ""Could conventional explosives account for this? Perhaps but the quantities of conventional explosives required to perform that feat would not be practical to have been placed in the buildings undetected.""
I strongly oppose that remark. Just think TBs. And their small and easily camouflaged appearance, combined with a near atomic explosion force when set off.

VT : ""This person had severe burns indicative of nukes:""
No, those are heat radiation burns. Explain why all the persons that survived in stairwell B, had no radiation burns and developed no radiation sickness nor cancer.


posted on Jan, 20 2015 @ 10:43 AM
VT : Conclusions.

(LT : Read them, here are my arguments :
1. Those 55 times greater than background Tritium levels, 11 days after 9/11, are still TRACE levels compared to a real neutron bomb emission.
""WTC-6– a 170 meter plume of smoke seen rising from the building""
That's pertinently wrong, that was the dust cloud forming at the base of the collapsing South Tower, which rose up from behind the North Tower in that picture, where you clearly see the South Tower already having collapsed for about 50 %. They copied that bluntly from the Mr White website, who also had that conclusion wrong.
3 + 4. I too would want to know the source of that Uranium level at that girder, but I do not expect it coming from a nuclear explosion. More chance from DU.
5. As said before, I am curious if these lock-stepped radionuclides turning up in the USGS dust samples as Jeff Prager excellently noticed, (just as FIRST William Tahill and then Ed Ward, MD,) can originate from DU. Which DU originates from nuclear reactors. Where the same decay processes turn up as during explosions, only MUCH slower, regulated by carbon shielding and stainless steel chambers.
6. I think other possible explanations will be found instead of nuclear fission, which explains the correlations and predictability of levels of numerous elements found by the USGS.
""VT : A 300 ton chunk of the North Tower was ejected upwards at a 45° angle and out 600 feet into the Winter Garden. Only extremely powerful explosives can account for this. It would be nearly impossible to plant enough conventional explosives to perform this feat.""
As you'd expect by now, TBs will EASILY do this. If I'm right, a quick math tells me that the equivalent of about 85 kilograms of RDX will do that. The only problem will be the necessary extra force to shear that whole chunk off its seats. And that will be taken care of by the enormous extra WHOMPPP the TBs bring to the table.
8. Totally wrong. On 26 September 2001 the IRIS measurements recorded already much lower (near- ) surface temperatures than 1,500°F. This is a plain misconception, if not a .....?
9. Please show those estimates of 1/3 of the towers been evaporated. I do not believe that. With good reasons.
10. Cancers from toxic dusts can easily be mis-indicated as from radiation. However, it still seems as if there were one or more radiation sources present during the collapses. Not from mini nukes. Other sources.
11. No, it is also a very telling sign of first stage Mercury poisoning. All should stay open for other explanations, than solely nuclear radiation.
12. Ditto, hanging skin is a common sign of prolonged first degree burns too, much more by the way then the chance of radiation effects. Ever had chunks of molten plastic splash on your arms?

Check the References I, and Dr Jones, and VT gave, if you do not believe my arguments.

NOTE : I contemplated some more on these lock-stepped decay products found by the USGS, and another source for those decay products could be, that those 3 planes that hit 3 buildings, had DU wing and nose fronts, to surely smash through that amount of very strong perimeter steel columns.
The weight and strength of DU ads a LOT of extra punch to the impact with those steel facade walls. And DU will burn vehemently, once ignited. Look up how it high velocity impact, or high temperatures, or a combination of both.
Thus, that stream of hot red molten metal, that Dr Jones thought to be molten Iron from some thermitic process, could have been Depleted Uranium from the plane its DU-fortified wing fronts and nose cone.
Which means it were prepared planes, which means, inevitably, planning.

Specific gravity DU = 18.7 kg/dm^3, standard Aluminum alloy = 2.55 - 2.80 kg/dm^3
Specific gravity DU is the same as the naturally occurring mix of uranium, U-238 (99.275%), U-235 and U-234.
DU atomic weight = 238.07 and from Aluminum = 26.97
Where maximum mass must fit in minimum space, DU is the solution.
It's 1.7 times as heavy as Lead. It's also used in radiation shielding, some 5 times more effective as Lead.

And DU usage on/in the planes does seamlessly fit in all the theories of William Cahill, Jeff Prager, Ed Ward, MD, Dr Jones, Charles M. Beck and a lot more of the long time 9/11 researchers. As I am too.
It at once unites us all, and our findings, and explains the lock-stepped radionuclides, the cutting like butter impacting planes, the measured low or trace levels of isotopes at all 3 scenes (Pentagon too).
And probably a few more explanations after you have contemplated a tad bit longer on my idea.

William Tahill website :
He is the originator of the nuclear 911 theory and its thorough research.
In my opinion, his conclusion is false, it were no nuclear explosion markers he found, but reactor decay products inherent in some sort of DU usage on 9/11/2001.

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 06:45 AM
NIST examines only 2 core columns from the collapse initiation zones.

OneWhiteEye : -- snip -- How many core column pieces were recovered from the collapse initiation zones of WTC1 and WTC2? -- snipped table --
One from WTC2 and 2 from WTC1.-- snipped 2 core area diagrams --
Of the 94 (47x2) column sections which pass through the crucial 98th floor of WTC1, NIST managed to recover only one and you are looking at it: From WTC1, Column HH:

This above picture is from N.Tower's column 605A HH, situated between floors 98-101, that's a 3 floors height span. It was a thinner, wide flange H-shaped column, not a build-up box column as in the S.Tower far lower plane impact zone. It was the second core column in line of the incoming impacting plane's nose cone, and thus also in line with the main longitudinal strong-aluminum-alloy center beam of the aircraft. Which is the strongest and longest part of its fuselage.

Thanks to the impressive meticulous work of OneWhiteEye from the 9/11Forum, we can find all this unreplaceable 9/11 information at one website he created for it. I am eternally thankful to him, for performing such a Sisyphus labor. It is the best 9/11-evidence Repository I know of, on the world wide web. I hope some of you get interested, will visit it, and then we can start a meaningful discussion based on its vast information, also at last in this forum.
I hope he himself will join in here. And then we can ad to that fantastic repository, and help him to improve it some more.

When we observe the left end of that HH column in the photo, one thing is clear. The plate that held the 2 column ends together, is sheared off, while the bolts and nuts of that plate's remaining part on the HH column end, are still firmly attached.
And that column end is torqued anti-clockwise while still attached to the upper part of the column under it, and then it snapped. And thus sheared-off that plate.
Or, after the torque, a TB went off and lifted the whole composite floors area up, and thus that connector plate sheared off.
Very difficult to falsify those two theories, since it's the ONLY column saved from the impact zone in the North asks himself WHY save only ONE?

OneWhiteEye : These columns are interesting but it is the absence of the other 195 core column segments from the steel collection and the investigation which is much, much more interesting.

It is pretty obvious that for WTC1 careful examination of the 47 column sections spanning floors 98 to 101 and the 47 core column sections spanning floors 98 to 95 would show investigators all they need to know about the collapse initiation processes. Likewise, for WTC2, careful examination of the 47 core columns spanning floors 80 to 83 and those spanning floors 77 to 80 are very important to understand the WTC2 collapse initiation process. For example, if these columns were pretty straight on the whole, lacking significant signs of visco-plastic creep and buckled hinges, that would tell investigators that there was little collective core buckling.

James G. Quintiere, professor, Dept of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland :

Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
Created on 10/15/2010 07:09 AM by admin.
Updated on 03/21/2013 09:37 AM by admin.

Spoliation = robbing, plundering of a fire crime scene.
Demographically labeled = every steel part its position per core area and floor area was labeled and numbered.

NIST noted in NCSTAR 1-3 that the core columns recovered from floors where fires were known to have occurred represent 1 percent of the columns in those areas. NIST did not find any evidence that any of the recovered columns experienced temperatures in excess of 250 degrees Celsius.

Isn't that a tad bit curious? Column HH from the impact zone of the North Tower thus reached less than 250 C temperature.
During the vicious fires we saw in the videos, and who knows how long that column HH was inside the still burning rubble pile with its hot spots lasting at least 2 weeks with temperatures far above that by NIST measured 250 C, measured by NIST through interpreting paint stains left on column HH.

Why does nobody ask themselves WHY we see as good as NO protective paint left anymore on ALL recovered and photographed columns? Nor on beams, girders, any steel parts?
It looks as if they were sandblasted.
And which sand did we have in abundance inside these exploding composite floor areas?
Yes, the shattered concrete coarse dust particles, acting as a sandblaster.

And a NATURAL, gravitational collapse will never act as such a completely successful sandblasting event.
It will crush, splinter and grind, but not sandblast all columns near-perfectly clean from PAINT.

Only TBs or mini nukes could do that. I gave evidence some posts above, why I myself exclude nukes in any form.

Thus, only TBs are leftover candidates for the 911 events.

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 09:26 AM
I notice that one of the diagrams do not show in one of my signature links, the EVIDENCE link post.
It's the third diagram in that years old post, which for some time now, shows just a tiny square with a teethed nibbler in it.

That's strange, since I can still find and view that diagram in my ATS Upload page .

This one :

Third diagram File info in EVIDENCE shows : yc4f5c952a.JPG, which is correct and the same as from the above picture.
Why does it show here in this post now, but not there? It still has there the correct
notation in that post text. (I just changed [ ] to [ ] so you can see it.)
In my EVIDENCE post it is correctly typed, but won't show up. (.jpg or .JPG makes no difference, will both show up, the software makes JPG from jpg)

How come, my dear Watson?

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 12:53 AM
On this page 7 you find a lot of the same ATS upload software anomalies as in my EVIDENCE link.

This text only post in that page is an answer to its former post that has some clear animated GIFs of exterior column packets caving inwards, then snapping back.
It shows quite well, that they were still at both ends attached floor panels, that were sinking at the core side, which means that, at least, the outer core columns attached to these floor panels were sinking. But all the other core columns were probably sinking at the same time, see the radio mast on WTC1N that sunk first in, then the roof rim followed. That indicates failure of the core columns as the collapse initiating event.

Which event that sinking caused is the answer we are looking for.
Charles M. Beck already proved through his math, that natural buckling of some, then all core columns by the heat of fire alone was impossible as the initiating event. And I have seen in the photographic repository of NIST and other sources, no buckled column ends, only sheared-off connector plates, or failed or even missing bolts and nuts.

That strongly points to some kind of human intervention, to cut or break those column ends bolts and nuts, and I think it were TBs that shattered the column ends connections, by up lifting and down pressing whole packs of composite floor panels.

EDIT : This post from the same member expresses exactly what I also see in all those collapse initiation videos.

a reply to: stosh64 So, let's see, where were we.. Ah, yes. Folks in here convinced me - by providing evidence thereof - that the exoskeleton was pulled inwards and so it MUST have been the core that collapsed, pulling the exoskeleton in over the trusses. We can see the North Tower's antenna sink into the roof, while the edges of the roof haven't moved yet. So the first thing that went were the core columns. To be honest, I'm puzzled by it, as the antenna was supported by a special truss that spanned the building (the hat truss). What amazes me is that the antenna almost exactly went down vertically and did not fall over. That means that the hat truss that was connected to it also went down almost vertically. I'd expect the antenna to fall over to one side as one wall (the impact wall) had been damaged so you'd expect the antenna to topple over in that direction. But it did not. Anyway - we can clearly see the core collapsed, can we all agree on that? And we also can see something strange: the part of the building above the impact floors collapsed into itself. So, we have a core that collapses, but only the upper half (the part above the impact floors). Then something else happens: magically the rest of the core also collapses, part by part, until nothing is left. Let's investigate a theory that may explain this. Please note that I'm not saying this gentleman is correct (he might be, I don't know). But he presents some materials of interest. Maybe we can continue our civilized conversation and maybe come to some kind of conclusion.

It was the core that failed first, not the floors as some thought.
And not from buckling. Buckling is deforming by a mass overload. Beck proved that wrong.
Then all is left is shearing off of bolts and nuts, or shearing of the plates where the bolts and nuts went through, plates that held column ends together and in place.

What we got offered by NIST is ONE twisted/torqued core column from the plane impact zone, with a clearly sheared off end plate at one side, and a fractured top end side. And the whole column was felted together in the middle.
We may assume that this was caused by the plane impacting this column as the second one in line, it reached after cutting through the perimeter columns.
Thus, we have NOT ONE core column as evidence for the collapse initiation. That doesn't smell like an honest investigation. By NIST.

And note that we see all the plane rubble shoved in one heap against those core columns, in the photos from the inside of those impact holes. Which means that the planes shoved broken-out perimeter columns in front of them, and all this debris acted as a huge "snow shovel", and not as a "spear", what they want you to believe. That core wasn't as demolished as they want you to believe too.
And fires in and around that impacted core area were as good as out after about 30 minutes, while those fires went up through the higher floors.

Read ForteanOrg his post carefully, those are exactly my observations and thoughts too.
edit on 23/1/15 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 08:05 AM
Regarding the above June 2007 Gordon Ross video, a few remarks :

1. Gordon talks about remnants of the core columns at 3:38, which really are inner core columns.
If you don't believe him, look up the analysis diagram to prove it was the core of the two towers still standing, at 4:20.
However, the outer row of columns of the full core were already missing from that picture. And those are the ones that held the composite floors...Listen to Gordon explaining that.

2. From 6:00 on, Gordon proves that the Progressive Collapse official story is totally wrong.
These officials want you to believe that the WTC2S collapse at this stage (6.5 seconds into the collapse) had already progressed at least 20 stories further down than the lowest (79) impacted floor level, WHILE we STILL see at this 6.5 second phase, that 79th floor standing firm and undamaged, while the upper top part is still imploding in on itself.

3. At 7:26 you see a photograph showing that the whitish dust explosions came out every third floor.
And all lenghts of core columns were also factory prepared, for 3 floor heights.
They were blowing up every third floor. To shear off welds in WTC2S, and bolts and nuts in WTC1N.

4. At 8:00 another diagram made by Muhammad Columbo is shown, where you see that the core columns were fully welded together at that WTC2S level.
I think that's incorrect, as you can see at the end of that huge double dented box column end from a lower tower level (as the opening picture of the YouTube video, or at 10:43). Those ends were welded together with thick plates, welded onto the column flanges.
Which plates are missing at that end, what we see are the two thick vertical welds where that plate was welded to that column end.
In the North Tower collapse area, we see core columns in H shape, not the box shape columns like in the lower South Tower collapse area. And they were bolted together with plates. Not welded.

5. From 9:00 on, Gordon tells us what to expect when we look at blown sideways column ends.
At 9:50 he shows precisely such deformation of a column end, photographed at the rubble pile.
One flange end is torned away. Many of these can be found in photos of the debris piles.
You see also signs of a very localized heated event, that orange coloration of that second torned away column end example. A disc shaped TB will cause all that. Not a cutter charge, that will cleanly cut through the whole column, and that's not what you see. Then the plate would still be there.

6. At 10:43 we see the opposite cone caved shapes of the end of that huge thick steel column laying at the scrap yard. I don't think a "scrapper beak" of those machines that pulled steel out of the debris, could have done that. That steel is simply too thick for that. It's a lower area column, since it is a three stories high column, and that first story you look at, is at least 3 meters high, up to that remnant of a floor connection. So then you know how thick that steel is, at least 6 inch (10 cm). And still the other thick massive end is rolled up like half a tire....

7. At 21:50 Gordon explains that we see no bend or buckled column sections, but mostly straight standard 3 stories high steel column lengths. In nearly all debris pile photos and scrapyard photos. And don't forget the absence of anti-corrosive paint, what you see are rusting steel sections.

8. More than 1,000 bodies were not traced. No DNA, nothing.
Huge TBs can do that, mini nukes can do that, and you know my stand on nukes. Months long "charcoal pits" can not do that, always some bones and other fragments like teeth are left in that kind of furnace fires.

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 10:27 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

Show me a video of the south face of WTC 7, and I will show you the "major event" prior to anyone seeing a visible sign of collapse on the north side of the building.

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:36 AM
A reply to: cardinalfan0596

It doesn't matter that we have no clear videos of the South face of WTC 7, during the WHOLE day of 9/11, but especially not in the minutes before, and during WTC 7 its collapse.

Since we have the seismic evidence of its collapse, which is another form of its collapse visualization.
And I posted numerous times now, the right interpretation of these seismic signals.
It shows that WTC 7 was hit by a huge energy event seconds before global collapse started, that outclassed in magnitude, all the following signal magnitudes which depicted the collapse it self.
And of course that could not have been caused by one column 79 buckling or breaking or "snapping", while the following failure of ALL vertical columns did send much smaller signals to the seismographs in Palisades N.Y.

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:38 AM
I am very sorry and sincerely apologize to Major_Tom, since he is in fact the Author of his website, not OneWhiteEye, as I wrote a few times in my above posts.

This is that impressive, 9/11 subjects site again, made by Major_Tom :

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:42 AM
This is a comment I copied, but forgot to include the source. It was from a You Tube video with lots of comments, about the progressive floors collapse theory as the initiation event :

PROVE that a WTC floor can fall 3 meters in 0.15 seconds and unbolt on 8 sides and have air eject out of 1 window when 20+ are open. While still connected to those perimeter walls, but not anymore to the core columns.

The exterior walls will in such case NOT cave inwards. Those floors will simply hinge downward in an arc, towards the facade. In such a case where the core columns did not buckle, or were not severed, but only these huge composite floors progressively collapsed and formed an increasing mass.
Charles M. Beck showed that scenario very unrealistic, impossible in fact. He also showed core column buckling by fire alone, as the initiation cause, very unrealistic. Impossible too, in fact.

This bolded by me sentence, is the MAIN remark by Major_Tom in his Authors Conclusions, in the TECHNICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FACETS OF 9/11 RESEARCH chapter of his On-line book :

Virtually all media outlets and individuals featured in part 6, framed arguments in terms of 2 distinct groups, the NIST - vs arguments put forward by STJ911, AE911T, Jim Hoffman, Jim Fetzer or those of a similar viewpoint. Interestingly, both point and counterpoint describe the global mass flow incorrectly. Neither viewpoint recognizes evidence of progressive floor collapse within each tower.

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:51 AM
I first tried to find out if he meant that that progressive floor collapse appeared during initiation; or even as the cause of the initiation events at the WTC collapses.
Or that he meant it occurs after the initiation events.
Since I do not have any problem with the last position, but have huge unsurmountable problems with the first.
It's clear to me after 13 years, that core columns must have failed first, in all three collapses.
The floors failed after that.
This is a remark by Major_Tom further on in that same page, which indicates that at the moment of his last site update, he still wasn't sure what the initiation event was :

Meanwhile, the actual initiation mechanisms remain unidentified, without any serious investigation or explanation, yet few people notice.

And his end sentences show what he believes is STILL the current state of affairs :

How can a very small number of independent researchers map and identify the collapse movements of the WTC towers better than the NIST?

This may be the biggest mystery of the collapses. This in itself should serve as a huge wake-up call to an impartial reader.

Where did the technical records of the collapses go?

The main thesis is that there is no fact-based historic record of the collapses. The true collapse modes of the Twin Towers are not accurately determined within any academic, professional or government literature. It is described incorrectly within history as it is being written. There are, however, millions of people that are falsely certain they know what happened because they believe verifiable incorrect authoritative statements and their own pre-conceived beliefs.

Direct measurements extracted from the visual record of the collapses grossly contradict history as it is generally presented. A record of measurements and documented observables of all 3 collapsed buildings on a level far more intricate than that which previously existed has been presented. These records are verifiable superior to, and grossly contradicted by the records provided by U.S. Government agencies.

In reality there is no scientific approach and, therefore, no technical history of the collapses at all. This is a verifiable statement.

The only, but huge difference I personally have with NIST is, that it was not a natural cause.
Not SOLELY impacts and subsequent fires. Those were mainly subversions, to confuse the shocked and awed masses.
It have been explosions. Or some kind of unknown yet, weakening of thick steel parts.

And by that weakening, I surely do not mean fires. They were too short lived, and progressed upwards and sidewards, while dying out within about 30 minutes, after all the office materials in the burning offices were consumed.

new topics

top topics

<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in