If Someone Proved one point Would Accept the rest?

a reply to: Salander

I actually may have mistaken the shot name in my previous comment. I was referring to the W54 warhead, which weighed about 54 lbs and had a yield of 10t.
While it may be possible to produce smaller weapons and get a smaller yeild with different fissionable materials, the efficiency of weapons this size is extremely low, and there would be easily detectable amounts of the fissionable material leftover after detonation.

a reply to: Salander

I am certainly no expert on micro-nukes, but I must say that after 11 years of study, the only theory that accounts for ALL the damage observed is the nuclear theory.

That is false. Nukes generate temperatures in the millions of degrees, which would have vaporized structural steel of the buildings and anyone near those buildings. Nukes also make a lot of noise but there is not a hint of an explosion as the WTC buildings collapse. Nukes also generate EMP, but you will notice that vehicles, cameras and even computers continued to operate normally.

The is no more evidence for nukes than there is for thermite and demolition explosives.

a reply to: pfishy

Thank you. Yes, I too suspect that it is possible to produce smaller weapons with smaller yields. I suspect all sorts of things might be tweaked and modified to produce smaller weapons with specific and desirable effects on the battlefield. After all, they have been improving and refining nuclear science and processes for half a century now.

The website Veteran's Today actually had some very technical papers published on that subject, very interesting.

a reply to: Salander

Thank you. Yes, I too suspect that it is possible to produce smaller weapons with smaller yields.

Even small nukes produce temperatures in the millions of degrees, radiation, blinding explosions, lots of noise and EMP. The fact that vehicles, cameras and computers continued to work normally is proof that nukes were not used. Even Steven Jones dismiss the idea that nukes were used and that is saying a lot. Check it out.

The Dimitri Khalezov "WTC was nuked" hoax

For years, various disinformation agents have been attempting to sabotage the 9/11 truth movement with claims that "mini-nukes" or "nuclear devices" were used to demolish the World Trade Center.

www.takeourworldback.com...

The website Veteran's Today actually had some very technical papers published on that subject, very interesting.

My advice is to steer clear of Veterans Today and this is one reason of many as to why.

Gordon Duff of Veterans Today Admits To Writing 40% False Information

Gordon Duff of Veterans Today in his own words. He admits To Writing 40% False Information and that at least 30% of the information on Veterans Today is false as well.

______beforeitsnews/power-elite/2012/11/gordon-duff-of-veterans-today-admits-to-writing-40-false-information-2440410.html

a reply to: Salander

Coupled with the epidemiology regarding rare cancers that are the subject of the Zadroga Bill, and it seems nuclear is the only choice.

That is false. No such evidence was ever found. The cancers were from sources that had nothing to do with nukes.

Ground Zero Workers File Billion-Dollar Health Lawsuit

MONDAY, Sept. 13 (HealthDayNews) -- Nearly three years to the day of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, lawyers for more than 800 "Ground Zero" rescue and clean-up workers announced Monday a billion-dollar class-action lawsuit against owners of the World Trade Center for exposing the workers to allegedly toxic conditions.

www.asbestos.net...


9/11 Ground Zero Workers Reach Claims Settlement

Asbestos and other harmful construction materials were used in the building’s construction during the 1970s, and when the towers collapsed all those materials were pulverized into airborne microbes; which were breathed in by every individual there for weeks and months. This is not to suggest that every single person there will develop cancers and deadly diseases, but the chances of such a disease have become more possible because of the exposure.

When airborne asbestos fibers are breathed into the lungs there is a risk of developing mesothelioma, a cancer affecting the lining of the lungs. Mesothelioma and other asbestos related illnesses are at risk in construction/demolition areas when proper safety practices are not taken seriously or ignored.


Hazardous Materials at Ground Zero

Contained in this "toxic waste pile," according to Sawyer and Worby, were:

* 200,000 pounds of lead from the estimated 50,000 personal computers in thousands of World Trade Center offices

* Mercury contained in the towers' more than half a million fluorescent lights

* Dioxin from oil and fuel

* 2,000 tons of asbestos

* Benzene from more than 91,000 liters of burned jet fuel

* Cadmium, PCBs, and up to 2 million pounds of toxins known as polycystic aromatic hydrocarbons.

All of these contaminants have strong links to pulmonary, skin or immune system ailments, as well as cancer, Sawyer said. He predicted that long-term cancer rates among clean-up workers could rise to five to seven times the norm during the coming decades.

news.healingwell.com...


Leukemia Risk Associated With Low-Level Benzene Exposure

Conclusions: We found an excess risk of leukemia associated with cumulative benzene exposures and benzene exposure intensities that were considerably lower than reported in previous studies. No evidence was found of a threshold cumulative exposure below which there was no risk.


Benzene and Leukemia

A substantial number of epidemiologic studies have provided estimates of the relation between exposure to benzene at work and the risk of leukemia, but the results have been heterogeneous. To bridge this gap in knowledge, we synthesized the existing epidemiologic evidence on the relation between occupational exposure to benzene and the risk of leukemia, including all types combined and the four main subgroups acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML).

Conclusion: Our study provides consistent evidence that exposure to benzene at work increases the risk of leukemia with a dose-response pattern. There was some evidence of an increased risk of AML and CLL. The meta-analysis indicated a lack of association between benzene exposure and the risk of CML.


Benzene Exposure: Warning Signs of Leukemia

Benzene is a recognized carcinogen that poses severe health warnings to workers and others who are exposed to it. There is a scientifically-proven link between benzene and leukemia; in fact benzene is a recognized cause of leukemia and other blood cancers, including multiple myeloma, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma and aplastic anemia.

Benzene has also been associated with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML), which can be potentially deadly and Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS), which truncates one’s stem cells and kills healthy white blood cells.


Dioxin

Many toxic chemicals are linked with a specific illness, such as lead and brain damage or asbestos and mesotholioma. Others are linked with several illnesses. Dioxin is tied to such a very large number of diseases because it is acancer-enhancer. Dioxins intensify cancers which other toxics begin.

As Barry Commoner explains, "...dioxin greatly enhances the activity of the enzyme system that converts most environmental carcinogens into active agents. Apparently, dioxin can so powerfully stimulate the enzyme as to sharply increase the activity of the small amounts of carcinogens present in...food, water, and air and thereby intensify their effect on tumor incidence. In effect, dioxin influences tumor production by enhancing the activity of carcinogens..."

This is why dioxin has totally different effects on different people. If a group of workers has already been exposed to chemicals which cause Hodgkins disease, dioxin will speed up the process and research will show that they have an increased rate of Hodgkin's disease. If a community has been exposed to chemicals which cause leukemia, dioxin will increase the rate of leukemia.


Cadmium

Our genetic blueprint is contained in the DNA of our cells. If the DNA is damaged during cellular replication, or by free radical stressors (such as Mercury, Lead, or Cadmium), then the cell becomes dysfunctional; it may degenerate into a cancer cell. DNA damage is not an infrequent event during normal life (i.e. sunburn), thus Mother Nature provides us with enzyme systems to carry out DNA repair. Cadmium inactivates this DNA repair mechanism.

In a study of DNA replication and repair in yeast cells, Cadmium exposure increased the cellular mutation rate 2,000-fold. Cadmium exposure is thus a cancer double-whammy; Cadmium damages not just our DNA, but also our capacity to repair damaged DNA.


PCBs, and up to 2 million pounds of toxins known as polycystic aromatic hydrocarbons at ground zero.

Governments Link PCBs and Cancer

Most government health agencies, including those listed below, consider PCBs a "probable carcinogen" for humans and a "known carcinogen" for animals, based on extensive cancer research studies included on these pages. All PCB mixtures cause cancer in animals.

* World Health Organization
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
* U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
* The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
* The National Toxicology Program
* The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

www.heartfixer.com...

www.greens.org...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The cancers, both in type and incidence, were very much like the cancers observed in the survivors of Chernobyl and Hiroshima.

The damage to the buildings could not possibly have been caused by office fires as NIST found. The damage to the many vehicles could not possibly have been caused by office fires.

The circumstantial case in favor of some sort of nuclear event is pretty strong.

a reply to: Salander

The circumstantial case in favor of some sort of nuclear event is pretty strong.

Except for the lack of an Earth shattering kaboom.
Are we back to silent nukes now?

a reply to: Salander

The cancers, both in type and incidence, were very much like the cancers observed in the survivors of Chernobyl and Hiroshima.
The damage to the buildings could not possibly have been caused by office fires as NIST found. The damage to the many vehicles could not possibly have been caused by office fires.

The circumstantial case in favor of some sort of nuclear event is pretty strong

That is false. I have shown that the cancers and other diseases were related to hazardous chemicals, not radiation. The lawsuits were specific and they focused on hazardous materials, not radiation.

Let' me put it in very simple terms for you, the 9/11 nuke claim was a hoax and you took the bait.

Now, let't take a look at how you allowed yourself to be duped again.

Gordon Duff Wrote:

A new and terrifying 9/11 conspiracy has hit the news. We are now confronted, not only with startling proof that 9/11 was a “nuclear event,” but that there have been thousands of unreported deaths in New York, radiation cancers and nearly 70,000 being kept alive with experimental stem cell therapy and physically devastating “chemo.”

www.metabunk.org...

Now, let's take another look at Gordon Duff.

Gordon Duff of Veterans Today Admits To Writing 40% False Information

About 30% of what’s on Veterans Today is patently false.

About 40% of what I write is at least purposefully partially false. Because if I didn’t write false information I wouldn’t be alive. I simply have to do that.”

www.dailyslave.com...

[

a reply to: skyeagle409

You have no credibility with me sir.

a reply to: samkent

I'm going on the assumption that fair progress has been made since 1945 in the field of nuclear science and weapons/devices.

a reply to: Salander

You have no credibility with me sir.

Nor me and it's as tho he can't be told enough.

a reply to: Salander

Considering that facts and evidence do not support you claim, you have no case, especially after you have been caught posting disinformation and using Gordon Duff as a reference after he admitted that he has been posting false information.

To sum it up, you committed a serious blunder by using Gordon Duff as a reference and I would refrain from attacking someone's credibility if I were you based on the number of blunders that you have been committing.

a reply to: randyvs

Considering that you both got caught posting hoaxed and bogus videos, and spewing disinformation, what more is there to say?!

a reply to: skyeagle409

caught

Yeah, I feel so guilty.

a reply to: Salander

You have no credibility with me sir.

Me either. I agree with your post. No one is supporting the nonsense that he continues to spam on these 911 threads. I have no idea to whom he is trying to convince.

a reply to: Informer1958

Have you been caught yet?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: samkent

I'm going on the assumption that fair progress has been made since 1945 in the field of nuclear science and weapons/devices.

The physics of a nuke requires there to be an over pressure. Or big bang.
That is what does the destruction.

Where was the big bang on 911?

a reply to: randyvs

Yeah, I feel so guilty.

You should be, especially since a number of countries around the world had issued warnings to the United States about OBL and al-Qaeda in the weeks and months prior to the 9/11 attack.

They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11

a reply to: Informer1958

No one is supporting the nonsense that he continues to spam on these 911 threads.

Demolition experts, architects, structural and civil engineers and firefighters will back me up. Have you read where the Architect community has distanced themselves from truthers? If not, let me know and I will post you a link to the American Institute of Architects.

Second thought, I think I will.

Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism.

www.architectmagazine.com...

And, we can go here because you said no one, so let's take a look and see if you are correct.

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Structural Engineering Report No. 07-05/C605c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Northwestern University
Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA

Conclusions
Several of the parameters of the present mathematical model have a large range of uncertainty. However, the solution xhibits small sensitivity to some of them, and the values of others can be fixed on the basis of observations or physical analysis. One and the same mathematical model, with one and the same set of parameters, is shown capable of matching all of theobservations, including:

(1) the video records of the first few seconds of motion of both towers,

(2) the seismic records for both towers,

(3) the mass and size distributions of the comminuted particles of concrete,

(4) the energy requirement for the comminution that occurred,

(5) the wide spread of the fine dust around the tower, (6) the loud booms heard during collapse,

(7) the fast expansion of dust clouds during collapse, and

(8) the dust content of cloud implied by its size. At the same time, the alternative allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of parameter uncertainties is considered.

These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Now, what was that you were saying when you said: "No one is supporting the nonsense..."

Trying to convince you of anything is moot by the very fact that it doesn't change the reality that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, and fire alone for the internal collapse of WTC 5.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Trying to convince you of anything is moot by the very fact

That's right, you are not going to convince me of anything. Specially "911 Myths." I do not believe in your conspiracy theories nor do I believe in the OS disinformation that you continue to spam in this threads with.

Yes, you are a conspiracy theorist, because you are on a Conspiracy website, trying to convince everyone that the OS is true.