Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: Bedlam

I embrace Occam on the issue. The reason the WTC complex looked like a bomb(s) had gone off there is because a bomb(s) HAD gone off.

The reason so many who worked at Ground Zero ended up with radiation cancers is because radiation was present. Matt Tartaglia talked about it before he died from radiation sickness. In normal times, total US cancer deaths are 5.7 per 100,000 population. First Responder deaths were 86.2 per 100,000

There were blast effects, but you deny them. The FEMA photographs make it very clear there were blast effects. One piece at least was blown hundreds of feet laterally with sufficient force to impale on adjacent buildings.

NYC coroner's report showed 1 body blown into hundreds of pieces.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Nuclear effects calculator

www.nuclearsecrecy.com...

Can ply with all sort of options - surface vs air burst, yields, fallout map, location (nuke your fav city)

Notice how even smallest nuclear weapon - Davy Crockett basically will destroy ( all structure within 120 meters -
just over football field and irradiate area over 400 meters (1/4 mile) from it)

Enjoy ......

a reply to: Salander

The reason so many who worked at Ground Zero ended up with radiation cancers is because radiation was present. Matt Tartaglia talked about it before he died from radiation sickness. In normal times, total US cancer deaths are 5.7 per 100,000 population. First Responder deaths were 86.2 per 100,000

Been over this numerous times Gruber.....

Within minutes of the crash, McKinney sent a radiological health inspector to check the site for any radiation sources. He reached Richard Borri, a senior scientist in the department’s office of Radiological Health, who like most people from DOH, was on his way to work when the first tower was hit.

While I was walking down Church Street, with all my instruments, I came within 1000 feet of the South Tower, and unfortunately the building came down,” says Borri, sounding every bit the unruffled scientist. “It’s a good thing I walked slowly.”

Borri checked the World Trade Center site for signs of radiation before and after the collapse of the buildings. Radiation could have originated in industrial radiology sources, such as the installing beams of the huge office buildings, which may have contained some radioactive elements from x-rays taken, and from depleted uranium used in ballasts in aircraft wing tips (such counterweights in airplane wing tips give the most weight for least volume, says Borri). It might also be left from any medical or dental offices.

New York City Department of Health had an inspector on site with sensitive radiation measuring equipment -
did not find any radiation

As did Haz Mat teams from FEMA, FDNY, EPA and host of other alphabet agencies ........

a reply to: firerescue

I've messed around with that before. I was just having fun with one of our resident better informed members when I asked jokingly about nano-nukes.

a reply to: Salander

Ever going to show how thorium is a signature of a nuclear bomb setting off?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Bedlam

You can take a goofy, throw away comment and science the s*** out if it so we all learn something.

Hey, it's a thing They® would definitely like to have, and work on constantly. A useful nuclear hand grenade is the semi-impossible end target. Although something more like the nuclear RPG looking thing on the first Starship Troopers would work just dandy.

And all ya need is a perfect neutron reflector. Get that down, the nuclear weapon world's your oyster. You can also build some awfully nice reaction drives.

originally posted by: firerescue
New York City Department of Health had an inspector on site with sensitive radiation measuring equipment -
did not find any radiation

As did Haz Mat teams from FEMA, FDNY, EPA and host of other alphabet agencies ........

In addition, setting off even a Davy Crockett (aren't the Mk54 test shot films available to the public? Have you SEEN them?) inside a building would result in truly massive amounts of 'fallout', as the neutron flux would activate the holy hell out of all the building materials, then scatter them in the ensuing explosion (which you didn't see any of either).

Also, as I said upthread, the Mk54 is inefficient, contaminates the HELL out of the area it's set off in, and their use was planned to maximize the deterrency of the weapon's contamination of a large swath of ground. Let me say that again, salander, the Army's tactical plans EMBRACED the god awful mess a Mk54 makes in terms of fallout and direct contamination of the area it's set off in. It's not subtle. It doesn't go away quickly. And the area and the fallout is there for weeks. The area is considered uncrossable for 48 hours. Not because you get cancer a year later. Because you #ing DIE. Even in armor.

This is a salient characteristic of small nuclear weapons in ground burst. The result you get isn't one of those things you'd be in any doubt about. Everyone in the area is going to die of immediate exposure, and the rescuers will die of secondary exposure, and they'll do it in a way that's unmistakable. That's not counting the fact that the NYC area is peppered with nuclear detectors. And that everyone and their dog had a counter on scene that day.

The fact you had survivors in the building and on the street below is another testimony to the fallacy of this idea. If you just ignore the fact that the building didn't have a spherical rupture at the point the weapon went off.

And, here's a link to a Mk54 test. There are way better quality films but this is the only one they released, I suppose.

The weapon goes off about 8:32, but the whole thing is worth watching, especially the discussion of the radiation maps and the effects on things that comes about 9:00. Multiply what you see here by about 10x because instead of a low altitude air burst, you're setting the thing off in a building surrounded by other buildings, where you've got a lot of material you can activate and scatter.

originally posted by: Bedlam
And all ya need is a perfect neutron reflector. Get that down, the nuclear weapon world's your oyster. You can also build some awfully nice reaction drives.

Let's head down to the Masonic Vault, pretty sure the aliens gave us something like that.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Bedlam

You can take a goofy, throw away comment and science the s*** out if it so we all learn something.

Hey, it's a thing They® would definitely like to have, and work on constantly. A useful nuclear hand grenade is the semi-impossible end target. Although something more like the nuclear RPG looking thing on the first Starship Troopers would work just dandy.

And all ya need is a perfect neutron reflector. Get that down, the nuclear weapon world's your oyster. You can also build some awfully nice reaction drives.

Ah, the elusive nuclear hand grenade with a throw distance of 25 meters and a kill radius of 50 meters requiring a variation of the shoot-and-scoot technique. The Navy had a larger version with the ASROC launched B57 hampered by the speed of McNamara era underpowered destroyers.

ETA: In the movie, I note Ivy Dragoon shoulder patches on the grunts in the trench.

originally posted by: pteridine

Ah, the elusive nuclear hand grenade with a throw distance of 25 meters and a kill radius of 50 meters requiring a variation of the shoot-and-scoot technique.

It's sort of like the WP grenade, I'd suppose. You couldn't pitch it far enough to be safe.

DIdn't stop us attaching them to claymores with 100 mph tape, though. One of the most effective improvised pursuit interdiction combos EVAR.

a reply to: pteridine

Ah, the elusive nuclear hand grenade with a throw distance of 25 meters and a kill radius of 50 meters requiring a variation of the shoot-and-scoot technique. The Navy had a larger version with the ASROC launched B57 hampered by the speed of McNamara era underpowered destroyers.

Davy Crockett had reputation as a suicide weapon - take out the enemy and the firing crew too....

Minimum firing distance of 300 meters was inside the lethal radiation distance (4oo meters) of the warhead

Also fusing for the warhead was by timer, gunner would consult range chart for the time of flight and set the warhead
fuse accordingly

Problem was strong head or cross winds would slow warhead allowing firing crew to be caught in damage radius of
own warhead......

a reply to: firerescue

You might have been over a million times Gruber, and I'm sure you've rationalized it in the process, but you haven't changed the facts.

The facts are that those who worked at GZ became sick in very special ways that closely parallel the sicknesses observed at Chernobyl and Hiroshima, and there is a reason for that.

I wonder if that NYC health inspector knew that Geiger Counters do not measure all types of radiation? I wonder if he was monitoring radiation the same way that EPA was monitoring air quality? Which is to say it wasn't being monitored, FYI

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue
I wonder if that NYC health inspector knew that Geiger Counters do not measure all types of radiation?

If you set off a nuke, you'd have all the gamma emission you could ask for. In fact, the workers wouldn't be getting cancer, they'd be dropping dead. It's sort of hard to get around, IMHO. There wouldn't be any "closely paralleling", it would be non-subtle.

Not to mention the lack of immediate death by the people in and near the building. There were people in the surrounding buildings that did not drop dead of gamma and neutron radiation. It's sort of hard to explain. Like the lack of overpressure. And the lack of a spherical rupture where the bomb supposedly was.

Eventually the cognitive dissonance has to give you a headache.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: firerescue


I wonder if that NYC health inspector knew that Geiger Counters do not measure all types of radiation? I wonder if he was monitoring radiation the same way that EPA was monitoring air quality? Which is to say it wasn't being monitored, FYI

Did Prager ever describe the size and placement of the bomb? Is there some new physics package that emits only radiation not detected by Geiger counters? What do you think that radiation might be? Prager successfully made a few bucks off the gullible so you probably believe that gives credence to his writings.

a reply to: Salander

OK Gruber....

According to article (link no longer active) he was carrying a scintillation counter designed to detect
gamma rays

Now a health physicist would expect to know what types of equipment to carry to detect different types of radiation

a reply to: Salander

How many people from general population are exposed to the dust levels of GZ many everyday products contain radioactive compounds what happens when breathed in over a prolonged period.

No evidence of bombs only straws being clutched at as usual by you Salander.

a reply to: Salander

Changing your stance? I thought you said thorium was the end all be all evidence of a bomb driven by nuclear reactions.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

When uranium-235 undergoes fission, the average of the fragment mass is about 118, but very few fragments near that average are found. It is much more probable to break up into unequal fragments, and the most probable fragment masses are around mass 95 and 137. Most of these fission fragments are highly unstable (radioactive), and some of them such as cesium-137 and strontium-90 are extremely dangerous when released to the environment.

a reply to: neutronflux

At least he hasn't done like so many ATS nukers and proceeded on to 'micro fusion bombs' or 'anti matter bombs'. Yet.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: neutronflux

At least he hasn't done like so many ATS nukers and proceeded on to 'micro fusion bombs' or 'anti matter bombs'. Yet.

Did I ever tell you about the micro hush-a-boom anti-matter bombs?

a reply to: pteridine

Dr Bermuda Schwartz' Banana Formula is not to be trifled with.