It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Study concludes explosives used on 911

page: 46
135
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

How many priests were running around Boston talking about molestation of altar boys? Bishops? Lawyers? Cops?




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: wmd_2008

I can easily remember that in US Army training in the 60's, the US Army was in possession of "tactical nukes" such as Davey Crockett. I know that a "suitcase nuke" was shown to members of congress way back when, including Barry Goldwater.

You can pretend all you wish that such things did not exist, but I know better. By 2001, one can only imagine what kind of progress has been made in tactical nuclear devices.



Of course they exist. The advances are in size and yield.

No matter what the size, they still go bang with a shockwave [no quiet explosions], produce radiation on detonation [visible light, heat, xrays, and gamma], and produce radioactive debris [fallout]. One cannot deny that the physical effects are the same [maybe the dolts at A&E will] regardless of advances in design.

How will you explain the collapse starting from the top? Where was the bomb placed? Why did no one see a fireball? Why was there no nuclear bang? Why was no radiation detected?

This is one of the most humorous conspiracy theories because those perpetrating it are generally ignorant of all things technical and don't really know what they don't know.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

How many priests were running around Boston talking about molestation of altar boys? Bishops? Lawyers? Cops?



Thoughts of pedophilia on a 9/11 forum?

Did not know criminals make efforts to make public there individual criminal activity?

Evidently they were arresting priests back 2002?




Clergy, abuse, and jail time

Prosecutions are rare, but 75 priests or ministers have faced convictions, prison.
By Mark Clayton, Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor; Seth Stern, Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor / March 21, 2002

BOSTON



It's sad you blame the actions of a sick few who tried to remain secret and took advantage of trust on the argument all Bishops, Lawyers, Cops are evil.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

I still think 9/11 conspiracies are more based on the phycology that people are so desperate to think somebody is in control they would rather believe their government conducted 9/11 for a purpose than evil people quietly and secretly strived to carry out senseless acts of violence?

How many credit card numbers, bank accounts, identities are stolen everyday. Must be the result of government In total control?
edit on 5-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed this

edit on 5-2-2017 by neutronflux because: And that



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Dumb & Dumber you tube has a video of a test of that have look before making yourself even more stupid looking.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Test firing of DAVY CROCKETT - Nevada Test Range 1962

Nominal yield - 20 tons

www.youtube.com...

After 1:30 in

Operative phrase "Deadly radiation" ......

A device this size releases lethal radiation (500 Rem) over 400 meters (aka 1/4 mile)

Why were survivors inside building and people outside not fatally irradiated.....?

Map showing weapon effects

www.nuclearsecrecy.com...

Davy Crockett weapon covers wide swath of southern Manhattan .......



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

I still think 9/11 conspiracies are more based on the phycology that people are so desperate to think somebody is in control they would rather believe their government conducted 9/11 for a purpose than evil people quietly and secretly strived to carry out senseless acts of violence?

How many credit card numbers, bank accounts, identities are stolen everyday. Must be the result of government In total control?


No, not really. 911 conspiracy theories are all based on just one common observation--by way of the NIST report and the 911 Commission report, anybody being honest with himself can see the official stories don't wash. As so many members of the Commission noted, "we were set up to fail". Anybody being honest reaches the obvious conclusion.

Only the credulous believe the official stories. Because the government refused to conduct a proper investigation, citizens from all walks of life began investigations of their own, and the results all show the official stories to be invalid.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: firerescue

Do you not understand research and development?

The Davey Crockett was relatively primitive by modern standards. We've come a long way baby, in R&D for nuclear devices, and 911 demonstrated that.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue

Do you not understand research and development?

The Davey Crockett was relatively primitive by modern standards. We've come a long way baby, in R&D for nuclear devices, and 911 demonstrated that.



9/11 demonstrated no such thing. From my post above:

"Of course they exist. The advances are in size and yield.

No matter what the size, they still go bang with a shockwave [no quiet explosions], produce radiation on detonation [visible light, heat, xrays, and gamma], and produce radioactive debris [fallout]. One cannot deny that the physical effects are the same [maybe the dolts at A&E will] regardless of advances in design. "

Show evidence of a nuclear bomb as per the above. Note that as they get smaller and smaller, there is no advantage to using nuclear devices, especially if it is a secret demolition. The Davey Crockett yield was 20 tons equivalent.

The collapse started at the top. Where was the device placed for that to happen? What was the yield?



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Still waiting on you to explain the inward bowing of WTC 2 then the initiation of collapse?



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander



The Davey Crockett was relatively primitive by modern standards. We've come a long way baby, in R&D for nuclear devices, and 911 demonstrated that.


Ah the mythical 4th generation nuclear device ......

Produces no flash, no noise, no thermal effects , no radiation ......

The perfect truther dodge - refer to something which does not exist

Again why was no radiation detected either during the impacts, subsequent fires, collapse and cleanup ?



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue

Do you not understand research and development?

The Davey Crockett was relatively primitive by modern standards. We've come a long way baby, in R&D for nuclear devices, and 911 demonstrated that.



Please explain how you have nuclear fission on the scale to generate a pressure wave to cut still with no boom or fission products?

The same nuclear fission that makes fuel rods dangerous after initial criticality.

You mean there is a way to do fission and not make dangerous fission product nuclear waste? Bet the nuclear power industry would pay out the noise for that technology. It would have been handy at Fukushima.

Again, example how you have fission of weapons grade radioactive material with no dangerous signature fission products?
edit on 12-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Cleaned up a bit

edit on 12-2-2017 by neutronflux because: Way for may



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

Do you acknowledge the testimony of Willy Rodriguez? Probably not, but if you do, what do you see as its significance?

Are you familiar with the testimony of Jim Gartenberg in his phone calls to his wife from his office on the 86th floor of the North tower? Probably not, but he reported that explosions were coming from within the core, through the elevator shafts, from the inside out.

Are you aware of the rare cancers amongst those who worked on the pile, as they called it, Ground Zero? Is that a Freudian slip by the perps? Did you know that those cancers are virtually the same as the cancers found in survivors of Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Do you often connect dots?



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Do you acknowledge the testimony of Willy Rodriguez? Probably not, but if you do, what do you see as its significance?

Are you familiar with the testimony of Jim Gartenberg in his phone calls to his wife from his office on the 86th floor of the North tower? Probably not, but he reported that explosions were coming from within the core, through the elevator shafts, from the inside out.

Are you aware of the rare cancers amongst those who worked on the pile, as they called it, Ground Zero? Is that a Freudian slip by the perps? Did you know that those cancers are virtually the same as the cancers found in survivors of Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Do you often connect dots?



Willy R thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

Gartenberg may have heard collapse noises or explosions of fire extinguishers, etc. but demolitions are another story. Nuclear explosives are an unnecessary complication for the purported conspirators and are part of the last ditch efforts of conspiracists who have run out of options. Had they been used, Jim would not have heard more than one, if that, and would not have made any calls at all.
According to your theory, where was the charge placed to start the collapse at the damage from the aircraft? What was the yield of the device? Why were there no effects consistent with a nuclear explosion?



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
You're good at linking Pteridine, but not so good at thinking.

Willy Rodriguez was there that day when it happened. He made public statements and received heroism rewards regarding his actions that day at his job, for which he was late that particular morning. He assisted he coworkers and others in escaping from the tower after the "airliner" hit the building. People did die, and there are many stories about what happened there that day, heroes and villains.

His testimony was taken behind closed doors by the Zelikow Commission, which participants of the charade openly admitting the commission was set up to fail, and his testimony was excluded by the Official Report, which citizens could buy, just so they could be purposely misled away from the truth.

Linking is cool, but dot connecting is even better.




posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
You're good at linking Pteridine, but not so good at thinking.

Willy Rodriguez was there that day when it happened. He made public statements and received heroism rewards regarding his actions that day at his job, for which he was late that particular morning. He assisted he coworkers and others in escaping from the tower after the "airliner" hit the building. People did die, and there are many stories about what happened there that day, heroes and villains.

His testimony was taken behind closed doors by the Zelikow Commission, which participants of the charade openly admitting the commission was set up to fail, and his testimony was excluded by the Official Report, which citizens could buy, just so they could be purposely misled away from the truth.

Linking is cool, but dot connecting is even better.



Have you concluded that the nuclear explosive theory is too far fetched even for poets or are you still trying to push it? I noticed that you avoided the topic. Why don't we discuss that first and then get back to Willie's story line?

Do you agree that a collapse starting from the impact point cannot be explained by a nuclear explosive?



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

I'm just waiting on an explanation on what caused the inward bowing of WTC 2 and then resulting building collapse?

Not very intellectual honesty for people to grapple with your questions and give scientific or evidence based answers. For what? For you to totally ignore the true question. What caused WTC 2's inward bowing of vertical columns leading to collapse?



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

No, I have concluded that the nuclear theory is the only theory that explains all known facts, all observed phenomena. It conforms to Occam's Razor: the reason it looked like nuclear explosions had taken place there is because nuclear explosions did take place there.

The reason USGS found high rates of thorium and other by products of nuclear fission is because nuclear fission had taken place there.

The reason those who worked at GZ contracted diseases similar or identical to diseases contracted at Chernobyl and Hiroshima is because nuclear events had taken place.

The reason large structural pieces of steel were blasted sideways hundreds of feet is because some source of very high explosive material was present.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

No, I have concluded that the nuclear theory is the only theory that explains all known facts, all observed phenomena. It conforms to Occam's Razor: the reason it looked like nuclear explosions had taken place there is because nuclear explosions did take place there.

The reason USGS found high rates of thorium and other by products of nuclear fission is because nuclear fission had taken place there.

The reason those who worked at GZ contracted diseases similar or identical to diseases contracted at Chernobyl and Hiroshima is because nuclear events had taken place.

The reason large structural pieces of steel were blasted sideways hundreds of feet is because some source of very high explosive material was present.


Where did you get the Thorium data? Is Thorium a product of a fission bomb?

Why did the collapses start at the impact points and where was the bomb placed to cause that to happen? Wouldn't conspirators be smart enough not to use a nuclear weapon? It would be obvious when the fireball radiation melted other parts of the city and the shock wave knocked down more buildings than intended. Broken windows alone would have tipped off the public. Radiation burns and fallout would kill many more people that would be hard to explain, too.

A nuclear weapon is about the last thing Occam's razor accounts for.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander


Thorium is not an especially rare element






On Earth, thorium is not a rare element as was previously thought, having a crustal abundance comparable to that of lead and molybdenum, twice that of arsenic, and thrice that of tin. Thorium only occurs as a minor constituent of most minerals. Soil normally contains about 6 parts per million (ppm) of thorium.


Possible sources are the mineral fiber used in the fire proofing

Also Thorium is used in glass for high quality optics and lens

Thorium occurs mixed with various rare earths minerals - such earths are used in the screens for TV and CRT terminals



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join