Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

a yield perfectly dialed to the diameter of, say, a 200 foot across building, so as to damage surrounding buildings as little as possible?

Please explain how a nuke can take out the steel within 200 feet and not blow out all the windows ?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: pteridine

... the hardness evaluation suggested that there was no detoriation of the mechanical properties of the materials as a result of exposure to pre-collapse fires.

That's what the Nist-report stated, no evidence for your pre-collapse fire theory. Bummer, innit?

one should consider that damage from impacts and fires are somehow the causes until proven otherwise.

Somehow... right.
Except there's justified objection to this sentiment, as it's just another subjective opinion. The burden of proof applies the same pressure on all theories, doesn't it? Which is why you're meddling with double standarts in thin air, just saying.

When you are finished "just saying," re-read section E5 in the report. Only portions [half] of four columns out of 329 were recovered and analyzed. Call it about 1%. It appears that there is a problem with your conclusion as you are implying that there were no thermal excursions anywhere.
Let's review: We have evidence of impact. We have evidence of fire. That's it. We have no evidence of explosives. We have rampant speculation by those who want a conspiracy for their own reasons; some financial, some egotistical, and some political in nature. They have no evidence, of course, but they do make a great deal of noise. They say they want a new investigation but should a new investigation produce the same conclusions, would they accept it or claim that it was biased and demand yet another?
I fear that they will be greatly disappointed, as a new investigation is not in the cards. The good news is that the 911 conspiracists will continue to have something to talk about for the rest of their lives.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

a yield perfectly dialed to the diameter of, say, a 200 foot across building, so as to damage surrounding buildings as little as possible?

Please explain how a nuke can take out the steel within 200 feet and not blow out all the windows ?

Or a blast with out fragmenting columns and a destructive rain of radioactivite / activated structural steel shrapnel?

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

The deceitful deed has been covered up in the same way that all those other dirty deeds have always been covered up, with more manipulated events to distract everyone's attention and new crises to drive the "old" stories from the newspapers.
In all of these situations, we let them get away with it.
Only charges without evidence and cover stories tossed around that were quickly shot full of holes. And more murders. Lots more murders.

a reply to: neutronflux





24 HARD FACTS ABOUT 9/11 THAT CANNOT BE DEBUNKED

18) The 911 commission was given extremely limited funds. $15 million was given to investigate 9/11. (Over $60 Million was spent investigating Clintons’ affairs with Monica).

I could insert much more here, but if you insist on thinking the way you do that is your choice. Me? Common sense prevails.

originally posted by: austincitylights
a reply to: neutronflux

24 HARD FACTS ABOUT 9/11 THAT CANNOT BE DEBUNKED

18) The 911 commission was given extremely limited funds. $15 million was given to investigate 9/11. (Over $60 Million was spent investigating Clintons’ affairs with Monica).

I could insert much more here, but if you insist on thinking the way you do that is your choice. Me? Common sense prevails.

The 'hard fact' about the Jones paper and thermite has been shown to be false and was easily debunked. So much for Cannot Be Debunked and prevailing common sense.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Variable yield nuclear weapons have been around for 60 years

The W54 - basis for the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle had yields of 10 or 20 tons - at the edge of reliable nuclear
weapons (anything less had tendency to "fizzle" or misfire) By upping the amount of fissile material and increasing
core compression could achieve yields from 10 tons to 1 kiloton (1000 tons yield)

en.wikipedia.org...

What you have failed to demonstrate are any radiation casualties

Even the smallest nuclear devices generate lethal radiation (500 rem) over 400 meters from detonation point

There were 20 survivors from INSIDE the WTC buildings - none suffered any radiation injury .

Yet you have nuclear devices going off on every other floor ........

www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap

Check out the weapons effects calculator - notice how even the smallest nuclear device covers most of southern
Manhattan with lethal effects.........

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Maybe should read this before posting any more ridiculous conspiracy fantasies dealing with nuclear weapons

nuclearweaponarchive.org

Gives good overview of nuclear weapons , their construction and effects

We have let President Bush II win the debate day with such senseless pronouncements as "the terrorists hate our freedom" and allowed him to murder 5,000,000 innocent people in Afghanistan without a shred of evidence that any of them were involved in the tragedies in New York and Washington.
It's too late to fix the situation. Let's face it.
They got away with it.
It's water over the damn, old news.
There's no going back now.
The die is cast.
The dead are buried.
The facts are firmly covered up.
New crises now distract us.
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 child was10 years old is now 25
When the powers were allowed to proclaim, forty years ago, that the murder of John F. Kennedy was the work of a lone gunman - a conclusion virtually no one ever believed - the American people sent a signal to their leaders that they could basically get away with anything they wanted, and the people would not object.

a reply to: madenusa

It's one thing to have convictions, it's another to have so little evidence that everything from lasers, nukes, holograms, missiles, and dustification thrown against first collapse. Yet, fire collapse is still the most probable cause with the only evidence. The other narratives depends on people's ignorance, facts out of context, and pseudoscience.

Still haven't read or heard anyone saying the destruction at the WTC sounded like controlled demolition?

originally posted by: madenusa
We have let President Bush II win the debate day with such senseless pronouncements as "the terrorists hate our freedom" and allowed him to murder 5,000,000 innocent people in Afghanistan without a shred of evidence that any of them were involved in the tragedies in New York and Washington.
It's too late to fix the situation.

Recheck your numbers: en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%932014)

a reply to: firerescue

Let's try a different tack - what about the people who were reported, after a bomb went off in the sub-basement that 'crumpled a heavy elevator door and evaporated a massive drill press' to have hanging skin? Their arms and hands were degloved as was seen in WWII Japan from thermal injury. And it wasn't from a fire coming down the elevator shaft, that would have incinerated them.

See, the problem with quoting sources is that we're not privy to the new stuff and the experimental stuff. Whatever you're reading is old unclassified news. A weapon like the Davy Crockett was what, 40 years old by 2001? You think the research didn't continue?

Any one looking at the video of the buildings falling can see it's an explosion. The OS promoting people apparently think that if you cut down a tree, it turns into micro sawdust in mid-air and all the limbs go hurtling out sideways 100 or 200 feet.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: SentientCentenarian

a yield perfectly dialed to the diameter of, say, a 200 foot across building, so as to damage surrounding buildings as little as possible?

Please explain how a nuke can take out the steel within 200 feet and not blow out all the windows ?

If you put the nukes in the core of the building which was 200 feet across on all sides, it can be scaled to take out the core, the outside frame (and yes the windows and cladding) as we saw blowing out from all four sides. Now you're trying to tell me the 'windows' weren't blown out in the towers?

And that's exactly what we saw. Again, that black smoke rising from the center of the collapsing building is the EVAPORATED CORE BEAMS. That takes millions of degrees, surface of the sun stuff, not an office fire. Very few core beams were found in the pile and they were all the very lowest floors, and those were heavily damaged.

Any version of a gravity collapse requires pancaking or a resulting 'pickup sticks' pile, but every single beam would be accounted for. They were not, in fact a great deal of the known mass of the building was gone, along with all the office furniture and over 1000 people. Your ridiculous OS cannot account for that. If you'd done your research you would know that; if you do know that and persist in your opinions I cannot help you.

Now I leave you to your endless arguments and insults. I have researched it thoroughly and I'm secure in my conclusions and that's all that matters to me, because your opinions are flawed and you refuse to learn.

I don't know how old you all are, but I've been studying this since 09-12-2001 and I had a head start, since I was an adult then, and used to being fooled by the MSM and lied to by the government. It's gotten so bad I need to reverse nearly everything they say to get a head start on reality.

originally posted by: SentientCentenarian
a reply to: firerescue

Let's try a different tack - what about the people who were reported, after a bomb went off in the sub-basement that 'crumpled a heavy elevator door and evaporated a massive drill press' to have hanging skin? Their arms and hands were degloved as was seen in WWII Japan from thermal injury. And it wasn't from a fire coming down the elevator shaft, that would have incinerated them.

See, the problem with quoting sources is that we're not privy to the new stuff and the experimental stuff. Whatever you're reading is old unclassified news. A weapon like the Davy Crockett was what, 40 years old by 2001? You think the research didn't continue?

Any one looking at the video of the buildings falling can see it's an explosion. The OS promoting people apparently think that if you cut down a tree, it turns into micro sawdust in mid-air and all the limbs go hurtling out sideways 100 or 200 feet.

A bomb would also have incinerated their shredded bodies. The 'evaporation' of a 'massive drill press' is a bit of a fantasy.

The physics of nuclear fission have set a lower limit on physical size. You might want to consider that and the concept that nuclear weapons would be quite obvious and limit the number of entities that could be blamed should the great plot be discovered.

Trees are not hollow tubes composed of toothpicks joined together.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Detonating even the smallest nuke fielded would collapse most buildings for several blocks around or at very least
totally gut the interiors as the blast wave blows in the windows and doors and penetrates inside

www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap

Effects radii for 20 ton surface burst (smallest to largest): ▼

Fireball radius: 50 ft (9,290 ft²)
Maximum size of the nuclear fireball; relevance to lived effects depends on height of detonation. If it touches the ground, the amount of radioactive fallout is significantly increased.

Air blast radius (20 psi): 190 ft (118,000 ft²)
At 20 psi overpressure, heavily built concrete buildings are severely damaged or demolished; fatalities approach 100%.

Air blast radius (5 psi): 410 ft (0.02 mi²)
At 5 psi overpressure, most residential buildings collapse, injuries are universal, fatalities are widespread.

Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns): 450 ft (0.02 mi²)
Third degree burns extend throughout the layers of skin, and are often painless because they destroy the pain nerves. They can cause severe scarring or disablement, and can require amputation. 100% probability for 3rd degree burns at this yield is 7.1 cal/cm2.

Radiation radius (500 rem): 1,400 ft (0.22 mi²)
500 rem radiation dose; without medical treatment, there can be expected between 50% and 90% mortality from acute effects alone. Dying takes between several hours and several weeks.

So why did most of the buildings around WTC survive - World Finance Center (WFC 1, WFC 2, WFC 3), 90 West St, 130
Cedar , Millennium Hilton Hotel , etc

This is addition to no radiation casualties

Try reading this

mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP02Screen.pdf

originally posted by: madenusa
The deceitful deed has been covered up in the same way that all those other dirty deeds have always been covered up, with more manipulated events to distract everyone's attention and new crises to drive the "old" stories from the newspapers.

Yes; the bad guys use new manipulated events and new stories to drive the news cycle past the event they want to hide.

Equally, the bad guys are writing their own "news" about the "original" events -- using disinfo, ridicule and threats/murder to handle potential whistleblowers.

Remember these jems?:












One of our glorious "representatives"





You could literally write a 30 page report in an afternoon detailing official/MSM lies. They do what they do because these criminals have infiltrated every single watchdog entity that could cause them grief.

The average American is simply not equipped to deal with the massive propaganda they are being hit with daily. The only real solution is to sweep this federal political machine out of our country. You simply can't reform an organization that is 100% cancer. Their destiny is to kill the host. 9/11 was one more event in that timeline.

a reply to: hellobruce

Yes, that goes to show how much the "truther movement" is very much a grassroots movement. Everybody knows the official story is a lie, and while some have theories as to what happened, many do not. People are funny that way.

a reply to: trace

Has nothing to do with propaganda. It has everything to do with the facts conspiracists do not have a coherent truth and no physical evidence. What does the truth have to do with 911 and WTC brought down by government planted demolitions. The two are not mutually inclusive. Conspiracists are not going to get to the truth pursuing false narratives used to push book sales.

a reply to: pteridine

When you are finished "just saying," re-read section E5 in the report. Only portions [half] of four columns out of 329 were recovered and analyzed. Call it about 1%. It appears that there is a problem with your conclusion as you are implying that there were no thermal excursions anywhere.

So you're saying they didn't find anything in their hardness evaluation and thus had to guess, there would've been some if it wasn't been hurled away in an instant? Fictual evidence is no physical proof at all, at least something to agree upon.

I guess you're still claiming there's no problem at all with taking 1,5 million tons of rubble from a crimescene?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I guess you're still claiming there's no problem at all with taking 1,5 million tons of rubble from a crimescene?

So why don't you tell us what you would have done with the crime scene?
Given CSI a shove and and say go at it ?