Study concludes explosives used on 911

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

These are smaller nukes with a very tight radius - reportedly the size of baseballs.

Why use a bomb if it cannot even blow out windows ?
Why use an extra small nuke if a conventional explosive will do the same job ?

You guys are making this nuke stuff up out of thin air.
Nukes leave radiation.
Nukes make very loud noises.
Nukes blow out windows.
Nukes melt concrete into glass.

Show us proof of all of these.

The USGS found evidence of radiation (again, see Prager's research) including massively increased amounts of tritium in the flush water, even after it was diluted with millions of gallons poured on the pile - and they needed to keep pouring water on to cool the pile because there was residual fission occurring in the pile, that's what caused all that heat that was seen on satellite photos for days, and the 'fire' not going out for 99 days, and the evidence of melted BEDROCK beneath the pile when they cleaned up that far.

Nukes make lots of noise, but hidden inside the core when they are instantaneously followed by the sound of the falling building? Lost in what was described as a freight train that got ever louder. You CANNOT have done your research if you think there wasn't enough noise to account for bombs.

The windows WERE blown out in sequence, as well as nearby buildings; the evidence is right there in the videos you're choosing to ignore.

Nukes may melt concrete into some kind of glass (after it cools) but given enough power they turn concrete and I-beams into micronized spheres, millions of which were in the dust. The smaller the particle, the bigger the force needed. Most of the concrete floors were in that dust cloud that rushed down the street, propelled by the blast wave, not the collapse of the building. There was very little in the way of 'collapse' - the building was blown out of the way of itself which means there wasn't enough downward force to account for a gravity scenario.

Look at the video of the buildings in mid-collapse. The floors, concrete and outside structure as well as all the people, office furniture and windows are being blown out sideways and to some extent, up. It shows the directionality of the blast force. Some I-beams were blown several hundred feet away and impaled themselves into adjoining buildings. If you've done your research, you've seen those photos.

That dark column of smoke seen rising from the middle of the explosion/collapse?

THAT'S THE CORE OF THE BUILDING, THOUSANDS OF TONS OF STEEL EVAPORATED INSTANTANEOUSLY.

BY A SERIES OF NUKES DETONATED IN SEQUENCE TO LOOK LIKE A 'COLLAPSE'.

And you bought it as a gravity propelled pancake collapse, that was disavowed within days of the event.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

So? You assume Steve Jones pushing demolitions is used by the government to distract from the narratives nukes were used?

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

There is no proof of nuclear bombs were at the WTC. There would have been mass casualties from radiation sickness with in hours, specific fission products and radioactive isotopes contamination. Not the radioactive isotopes normally found in building materials.

Want to prove the nuke bomb narrative? List the USGS finding and what radioactive isotopes they found.......

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

We have had these tactical nukes in our nuclear arsenals for decades now - of small yields and radiation signatures; tight enough to control for the diameter of a 200 ft building and not much larger. (Note the blown out windows in next door buildings).

Stop with the nukes already!
It's getting ridiculous.
Google the speed of an explosion.
They range from 1800 m/sec to over 3000 in a gaseous environment.
That far exceeds the speed of sound. Say sonic boom.
You want that high speed to do the damage.
Any nuke is going to blow out all the windows on many floors instantly.
Not to mention all the surrounding buildings.
These fools on the web who are trying to convince you that a nuke was used are just that fools.

These are smaller nukes with a very tight radius - reportedly the size of baseballs. After 'Czar Bomba' the biggest nuke ever, the research went quiet. They started making them smaller.

It is YOU who need to do the research. You COULD NOT HAVE read the Prager report yet; it took me days to go through that, it's extremely detailed. So we have proof you're responding to an honest post with new (to you) information and you can't be bothered to check it out; we know all we need to know now about your due diligence.

It takes a massive amount of energy far exceeding the 'speed of sound' to turn buildings, I beams, office furniture and people into dust at micron levels. He covers that, in spades (he has several other reports on the same topic, this is a synopsis).

It was reported by the pile cleanup people that nothing was left of the office furniture. One filing cabinet, ONE, was found in a subbasement, warped and melted. No other office furniture, evaporated along with over 1000 bodies.

How does any variant of a pancake collapse explain that? Should have all been there, floor/office/floor/office/floor/office - identifiable if crushed.

It wasn't.

You can lie to yourself all you want to, and some day blame it on cognitive dissonance but I've done thousands of hours of research on this from the first day; I knew that wasn't gravity, fire or jet fuel.

Prager's work proved it and he has my undying gratitude for doing the work I wasn't capable of. One big mystery in life, solved. Unlike your ranting here which solves nothing and only obfuscates.

Prager is playing you. Look up critical mass for a fission bomb. Calculate the size of the sphere. Then add in the required conventional explosives, power supply, controllers, etc. and then you will understand that Prager didn't prove anything and was just talking. Don't you think that a nuclear weapon is a really stupid way to do a demolition? Wouldn't a nuclear explosion greatly limit the people who could be blamed should it be discovered? Note that no evidence of explosives has ever been discovered and the only thing that can be said is that some people with little understanding THINK that the collapse LOOKED LIKE a demolition.
Too many bad movies.....

It's all there in the link.

Too bad you all can't read.

Just think, who needs demolition companies any longer.

One can set some office firers in any building and it will fall down the same way a control demolition, it is that easy.

The only thing we need is the firer department to control the firer from spreading to other buildings.

I am sure many demolition companies are going out of business because of how the WTC fell.

a reply to: Informer1958

The EPA won't let them.

I've often wondered why isolated structures couldn't be burned to the ground and save the labor and landfill.
But you just can't get permission.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Just think, who needs demolition companies any longer.

One can set some office firers in any building and it will fall down the same way a control demolition, it is that easy.

The only thing we need is the firer department to control the firer from spreading to other buildings.

I am sure many demolition companies are going out of business because of how the WTC fell.

Yup. Even if the building is 110 stories high, covers 200 feet squared on each floor, and the most massive beams were on the lower 2/3 of the structure, with the top floors being much less robust size steel. With much of it MISSING when the steel was weighed as it was transported off in the cleanup.

Thank you for your response. I'm done talking to the 12 year olds here. 15 years of cognitive dissonance and asking the same damn dumb questions over and over again.

a reply to: richapau

No doubt. No plane hit WTC 7, no falling debris hit WTC 7, only a 2 story fire in WTC 7. Oh and coincidentally Enron accounting and tax records were stored in WTC 7 as well as IRS records and SEC records.

Nothing hit WTC 7...??

A 20 story gash was slashed into south side of WTC 7 - elevators in WTC 7 were dislodged from the their shafts

Only 2 stories of Fire...??

Try 13 floors on fire - some fully involved

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

With much of it MISSING when the steel was weighed as it was transported off in the cleanup.

Proof please.

a reply to: Sentie

The USGS found evidence of radiation (again, see Prager's research) including massively increased amounts of tritium in the flush water, even after it was diluted with millions of gallons poured on the pile - and they needed to keep pouring water on to cool the pile because there was residual fission occurring in the pile, that's what caused all that heat that was seen on satellite photos for days, and the 'fire' not going out for 99 days, and the evidence of melted BEDROCK beneath the pile when they cleaned up that far.

ntCentenarian

Tritium is found in number of things - luminous floor signs which were present on every floor in WTC, luminous sights
for guns - US Customs, ATF, Secret Service all had offices and arsenals in the WTC complex. Water from the Hudson
River was pumped on the site for 2 months to extinguish the fires. Right upstream is a nuclear plant (Indian Point)
Small amounts of tritium are produced in the cooling water by the nuclear reactions

What residual fission was that ....?? The fires were caused by thousands of tons of combustible materials - office furniture, paper (lots and lots of paper) from the destroyed offices

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
It's all there in the link.

Too bad you all can't read.

I read what Prager is pushing. Look at some of it critically instead of just parroting what you read without understanding any of it.

Consider the paragraph HEAT GENERATION AT THE WTC FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS AFTER 9/11- -THE CHINA SYNDROME AFTERMATH. He is claiming that this is due to unreacted radioactive bomb material and finally abated when someone magically carried it away. It is actually due to underground fires. It abated when the fuel was used up. You can look at the thermal maps and see how the fires moved over time. As I remember, it was about six weeks or so.

Now look at MASSIVE EVIDENCE of ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSES (EMP) FROM NUKES This evidence was flickering lights. Massive evidence. Whenever the lights flicker, look first for EMP from a nuclear bomb as it couldn't possibly be anything else. What happened to the people exposed to the massive EMP and radiation while witnessing flickering lights? My lights flickered just now and I am checking the basement for micro nuke.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Here is nuclear weapons effects calculator

www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap

Smallest nuclear weapon fielded was W54 "DAVY CROCKET" recoilless rifle with 20 ton (.02 kiloton) yield

It generated lethal burst of radiation for 400 meters

Why were there no radiation casualties ??

Baseball size nukes ?? - W54 measured 16 inches by 11 inches and weighed in at 50 lbs

Its bigger cousins Special Atomic Demolition Munitions (SADM) weighed in at 160 lbs in special shipping container

Was designed for special forces to plant behind enemy lines to destroy mountain passes or dams

originally posted by: richapau
a reply to: Raggedyman

No doubt. No plane hit WTC 7, no falling debris hit WTC 7, only a 2 story fire in WTC 7. Oh and coincidentally Enron accounting and tax records were stored in WTC 7 as well as IRS records and SEC records.

So you reckon those records were heavy enough to have caused the collapse, that sounds as good as anything else I have heard

Just wondering, what are the SEC records.
I hear that the pentagon lost quite a few records as well, related to some missing money

I wonder if the main target was WTC 7 and the records contained in there, the other two towers were just the show
Is that far fetched?
Just asking, sounds like you know a little more than me

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

With much of it MISSING when the steel was weighed as it was transported off in the cleanup.

Proof please.

The 99% will live in the reality the 1% will create for them.
The 1% is to shape the reality of the 99% and through various of things “They” have accomplished that, and “They” are damn good in keeping the control.
The evidence for 9/11-Truth was obviously left behind on purpose (WTC7 in broad daylight, tiny initial hole in the side of the Pentagon, the Operation Northwood's papers being "mistakenly released").
And people are supposed to see that the evidence was left behind on purpose.

Yet, most people believe the official story despite the fact that the government made it obvious not only that the buildings collapsed from controlled demolition, but also that the evidence for this was obviously left behind on purpose.

Even conspiracy theorists have a hard time with this obvious fact.
They leave behind the evidence on purpose, they make it obvious that they left behind the evidence on purpose, AND MOST PEOPLE STILL BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY.
Others, among you, will continue to roam the internet, helplessly addicted to your morning shots of email and memes and in jokes and twitter debates.
Never conscious of how easily you’re manipulated by an army of scientists, marketers and engineers.
Never bothering to think more than 3 seconds before shouting your opinion- which will basically be you parroting the opinion of the people you find coolest.
Millions and millions. A tidal wave of voices. All of which use sound bites as their opinion
This is all talk and no results. they can control the masses this way.
Example....
A debate that will rage on forever with hardly any change happening.

a reply to: madenusa

There is no proof of controlled demolition. The WTC site and steel was thoroughly sorted and inspected. To say otherwise is to ignore basic facts so a false narrative can be pushed. If a person cannot be honest that WTC debris was inspected to the extent of sorting on conveyor belts by hand, they have proven their arguments are based on false narratives. Once exposed as using false narratives, how do you believe any narrative presented by that person.

Then you have one truth? Yet conspiracists cannot agree on demolitions in the elevator shafts, demolitions in fire extinguishers, thermite paint, nuclear bombs, hologram jets and lasers, missiles disguised as jets, drone jets, and dustification.

Know why the listed above cannot be proven and such wide speculation? Because there is no physical evidence for the items listed above. Only gossip. Dustification is a joke! The reason there is room for dustification and DR. Wood, and Dr Wood can debunk the other conspiracists theories? Because all the other WTC conspiracy theories have glaring and obvious lack of evidence.

a reply to: neutronflux

The WTC site and steel was thoroughly sorted and inspected.

If a person cannot be honest that WTC debris was inspected to the extent of sorting on conveyor belts by hand,

Can you send me a credible source to validate this opinion please.

I just haven't had any luck finding it.

a reply to: Informer1958

What ever dude, you have had this argument hundreds of times. Others, and myself, have provided repeated links to the extent WTC debris, human remains, and evidence was recovered in numerous threads you were part of.

Your go to line of "sources please" is sad and tiresome. Especially when people have lead you by the noise in other threads and have repeatedly supplied the sources you ask for again and again.

You are so biased I think you are Steve Jones himself...........

a reply to: neutronflux

What ever dude, you have had this argument hundreds of time. Others, and myself, have provided repeated links to the extent WTC debris, human remains, and evidence was recovered that you were part of.

Your go to line of "sources please" is sad and tiresome. Especially when people have lead you by the noise in other threads and have repeatedly supplied the sources you ask for again and again.

You are so biased I think you are Steve Jones himself...........

So that is your answer to my question?

Especially when people have lead you by the noise in other threads and have repeatedly supplied the sources you ask for again and again.

I have never asked for this information before, and if I did it was never given.

I have been very courteous towards you, why are you so disrespectful when I ask a simple question?

Have I disrespected you today?