Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

a reply to: Salander

Nuclear power plant vs small nuclear bomb...

A bomb weighing a total of 50 pounds vs tones of uranium?

www.world-nuclear.org...

For a reactor with an output of 1000 megawatts (MWe), the core would contain about 75 tonnes of low-enriched uranium.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

All four variants share the same basic core: a nuclear system which is 10.75 inches (273 mm) diameter, about 15.7 inches (400 mm) long, and weighs around or slightly over 50 pounds (23 kg).[2]

The W54 core, based on the available Training Manual illustrations (particularly of the Davy Crockett) was a spherical device 10.75" in diameter plus the Safe-Arm and Electronics module in the tail cone with time fuse and a Contact fuse in the nose. The best photographic interpolation match to its external dimensions is a center cylindrical section 11 inches in diameter and 5 inches long, with roughly 5.5 inch radius hemispherical nose and conic tail cone. Other pictures show a smoothly contoured 5" minor by 5.5" major axis elliptical nose with a 5" minor by 21.5" truncated elliptical tail. Four fins extend the over all length to 31", with a central hemi-spherical to cylindrical projection that serves to join the bomb to the spigot-piston that is muzzle loaded into the launcher.[citation needed]

a reply to: Salander

So, low yield uranium with a 3 percent concentration could be theoretically concentrated to over a ton of uranium at a 100 percent concentration?

50 pound bomb vs a core with over 1 ton of uranium?

Two 50 pound bombs diluted by exploding their contents and heating over 1,000,000 tons of ruble made molten steel for 90 days?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


No friend, the radiation was not keeping it molten, some source of heat was keeping it molten, as in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

You have no idea how heat is generated do you? There are 3 ways:

1- kinetic energy of fission byproducts heats stuff it collides with

2- absorption of gamma rays

3- radioactive decay

All 3 release radiation.

I'm betting this is news to you.

3-

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: MrBig2430


No MisterBig, it's not delusional.

Oh but it is.

You've just put your faith in someone on the interwebz that says something that appeals to you. No research on your part. Zero critical thinking. Pure faith.

Quelle surprise.....

a reply to: neutronflux


Which government branch was out there testing for radiation? Apparently none, for there has been no government record of radiation detected being zero, just as there was no government record of the air being tested, even as the EPA head pronounced the air just fine to breathe.

There were ample signs of radiation present though, as those who worked at GZ were taken sick with radiation poisoning.

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


No friend, the radiation was not keeping it molten, some source of heat was keeping it molten, as in Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

You have no idea how heat is generated do you? There are 3 ways:

1- kinetic energy of fission byproducts heats stuff it collides with

2- absorption of gamma rays

No, that's not news to me, and neither is it news to me that the government is well known for its lies and deception, and its ability to cover-up facts and truth.

Remember how Kean & Hamilton both reported that the Commission was set up to fail? Have you given any thought as to what that means, or would you rather not?

3- radioactive decay

All 3 release radiation.

I'm betting this is news to you.

3-

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Which government branch was out there testing for radiation? Apparently none, for there has been no government record of radiation detected being zero, just as there was no government record of the air being tested, even as the EPA head pronounced the air just fine to breathe.

There were ample signs of radiation present though, as those who worked at GZ were taken sick with radiation poisoning.

You have been part of threads where it's been shown emergency services tested for radiation.

Don't you quote some government radiological survey?

Moot point. In your false narrative to keep steel molten for 90 days, we are talking radiation that would be detectable from the air, turn lead crystal black, cause hair to fall out, uncontrollable puking, and death in just a few hours.

a reply to: neutronflux

State cases of radiation poisoning treat at the WTC

originally posted by: [post=22591332]Salander

No, that's not news to me,

Then why did you say that radiation wasn't a factor?

Do you actually believe that telling outright lies boosts your status and/or case?

I'm betting you have no idea just how telling easily debunked lies will do for you. I think this is a case of just throwing # against the wall and seeing what will stick. Right?

a reply to: Salander

You have been informed of this multiple times Gruber......

So why do you insist on lying...??

So why were there no radiation detected at the WTC site ........

Tests for a ‘dirty bomb’

A major concern was that terrorists could have unleashed a so-called “dirty bomb,” an explosive device containing radioactive compounds like cesium.

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.”

How does one continue on one’s mission without getting distracted by such details as a 110-story building comes down in front of you? “You concentrate on what you need to do,” says Borri, who simply walked amid the vehicles and victims covered with layers and layers of soot, “taking samples off the people coming out of the building.”

The high-tech gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger Counter.

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.

www.neha.org...

Why were there no radiation casualties......?

New York Department of Health sent a physicist armed with sensitive instruments to detect radiation

He found none.....

Later FDNY HAZ MAT surveyed site that afternoon - after sufficient members had responded to recall

The on duty shift that morning died into collapse of the towers....

They found nothing as did plethora of alphabet agencies from state. local, federal government















~

a reply to: firerescue


Would you be interested in posting any sort of link to the FDNY Hazmat team's report about that? Any sort of documentation, because I would love to read it. Thanks

a reply to: Salander

Would you like to post actual cases of radiation burns and sickness from the WTC?

My two pennies:
Asbestos and demolition costs killed its usefulness, and provided the perfect opportunity to cover up trillions of dollars missing, and justify war.

The dates and times were carefully chosen around some Satanic belief that TPTB hold, and the act a perfect way to say to the world that TPTB will stop at nothing to get what they want "You are either with us or against us." There is no middle lane.

They carefully used overlay images on live feeds (though not carefully enough, thank you September Clues ((youtube))), to simulate airplanes crashing into the building, though they did not bother with the Pentagon. (Most likey missiles, as eye and ear witnesses attest that day).

The buildings were then demolished, as one can plainly see by the combination of freefall and basic physics.

The main suspect Bin Laden denied the accusations, leading to his fake stand in.

Our leaders are mass murders, and accomplices to mass murderers.

Yet 16 #ing years after the fact we bicker over tiny details. Our minds are tainted with disinfo, and the brave men and women who were part of that day slowly die, suffering more each day. Meanwhile, George Bush, Cheney et al, are living it up somewhere high on class A drugs, fine food, nary a care in the world, a smug look permanently etched onto their faces. Disgusting.

Personally, I regard anyone who believes or promotes the official narrative as ignorant, or complicit.

originally posted by: StonedPidgeon

They carefully used overlay images on live feeds (though not carefully enough, thank you September Clues ((youtube))), to simulate airplanes crashing into the building, though they did not bother with the Pentagon. (Most likey missiles, as eye and ear witnesses attest that day).

Thanks for pushing false narratives that are roadblocks to the truth you claim you are searching for. How ironic.

Lest start with the pentagon.

What 4 foot diameter missile used as a kinetic weapon would create an entrance hole almost 90 feet wide and up to 26 feet tall? How did the DNA and human remains of flight 77's crew and passengers end up at the pentagon. What created the large fire ball of fuel.

If a missile detonated:
Why was there no interior of the pentagon exploded onto the lawn.

Conspiracists claim there was no pitting or cratering on the concrete floors as proof it was not a jet? Floors covered with tiles and finishings. What would a exploding missile do?

How was construction trailers and equipment pushed towards the pentagon mostly undamaged. A bomb would have pushed the equipment away and at least damaged the equipment with shrapnel?

The eyewitnesses

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

As defined in this paper, eyewitness testimony at the Pentagon on 9/11 and shortly afterwards includes the following categories of witnesses, presented according to the theory their testimony supports:

1. Witnesses who saw the approach and/or impact of a large plane (measured in scores, 31 to 89 - 100)
2. Witnesses who saw the approach and/or impact of a small plane (about 4)
3. Witnesses who claimed to have seen a north-of CITGO path (about 12, many of whom also claim that
plane impact with the Pentagon did occur)
4. Witnesses who claim to have seen a plane fly low over, or away from, the Pentagon (CIT cites 1
questionable18 witness)
5. Witnesses who inferred bombs or explosives from the sound and/or odor (about 12), and far less if the
more reliable tests of odor and observed casualties are applied. See Appendix B.
6. Witnesses who inferred a missile from the sound or otherwise (about 6).

a reply to: Salander

my.firefighternation.com...


Original article is from www.neha.org - no longer online

I had excerpted sections in earlier posts on ABOVE TOP SECRET

Last paragraph ......

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.”

That was fortunately not the case, Borri found, using a portable liquid scintillation counter, which measures radioactivity like a Geiger counter. The high-tech portable gadget he carried, one of the few available in the United States, is far more precise than its century-old cousin, the Geiger, counter with a much more refined ability to detect any kind of radioactivity.

Although Borri didn’t turn up any problematic radioactive readings by the end of the day, his work would be supplemented by the federal Department of Energy, whose technicians remained on site and continued to sample. [Only during the last days of the Ground Zero cleanup would radioactive testers find any evidence of radioactive emissions, from a pharmacy laboratory located within one of the buildings.]

At this point it was utter chaos trying to find people and get organized. It took a while to re-organize and find some people and get working on the rubble to look for survivors. A total recall was ordered and upon the arrival of a few more Haz-Mat guys we performed quick surveys of the perimeter in two teams of four checking for radiation, nerve and blister agent, all results were negative. We then began digging for survivors.

FDNY HAZ MAT unit carried out surveys on WTC rubble later in day

In next few weeks HAZ MAT unit would be busy with anthrax attacks

Of course will simply ignore it and lie.......

originally posted by: neutronflux


Thanks for pushing false narratives that are roadblocks to the truth you claim you are searching for. How ironic.

Lest start with the pentagon.

Ok, you started with the Pentagon. Can you continue..?

a reply to: StonedPidgeon

You first. Can you answer the contradictions of the truth movement.

The fist being the claims of the truth movement in that flight 77 left no marks on the concrete floors? (Funny that most building have some sort of covering of the concrete) but an exploding missile caused no pitting or cratering in the concrete.

If the missile was just used as a kinetic, most conspiracist back the stolen sunken Russian missile. A missile under four feet in diameter. How did the missile create a 90 foot wide and 26 tall entrance hole in the shape of an upside down T.

The scores of eyewitnesses that attest to seeing a large commercial jet hit the pentagon. Vs under 15 people smelling cordite. (Which has petroleum products in it. Surely has nothing todo with burning materials and jet fuel.) bs six people that heard a missile?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: StonedPidgeon

You first. Can you answer the contradictions of the truth movement.

The fist being the claims of the truth movement in that flight 77 left no marks on the concrete floors? (Funny that most building have some sort of covering of the concrete) but an exploding missile caused no pitting or cratering in the concrete.

If the missile was just used as a kinetic, most conspiracist back the stolen sunken Russian missile. A missile under four feet in diameter. How did the missile create a 90 foot wide and 26 tall entrance hole in the shape of an upside down T.

The scores of eyewitnesses that attest to seeing a large commercial jet hit the pentagon. Vs under 15 people smelling cordite. (Which has petroleum products in it. Surely has nothing todo with burning materials and jet fuel.) bs six people that heard a missile?

Since you asked so nicely, of course.

The wingspan of Flight 77 is 124 feet, and entered into the Pentagon at a 42 degree angle, which actually increases the projected wingspan and entrance hole to 160 feet.
Therefore, the size of the entrance hole,90 feet as you have stated, is not compatible with the official narrative.
I kindly await your response.

Source for Technical Specs of plane: Boeing 747 200 Series Tech Specs

Oh, and before you reply with the generic debunker reply that the wings disintegrated hence not piercing the facade, please kindly explain how the fuselage of the plane was able to do so, despite being the weakest part of the plane.

a reply to: StonedPidgeon

The 90 foot wide entrance hole is explained by the evidence of the flight path. The damage to the wings as it clipped an antenna, light poles, vegetation, the left engine clipping a low concrete wall, interactions with items in the construction yard, and the left wing hitting the ground before the jet impact the pentagon.

Now you explain how the entrance hole favors a missile over jet impact.

The fuselage?

The wing tips only had three or four feet of wing behind the leading edge to push against the pentagon.

The fuselage only had 157 feet behind the nose to drive the fuselage into the pentagon. A fuselage build to take the stess of the wings attached to the airframe, houses the airframe built to take the abuse of the leading gear, and house cargo.

If a fuselage 14 feet diameter, made to take the abuses of landing, and 157 feet long could not penetrate the pentagon? How would a four foot diameter missile used as a kinetic weapon, only 40 foot in length, penetrate the outer wall? The missile also probably being less in mass.

If the missile was detonated, why no damage to the concrete floors, no windows blown out, no interior of the pentagon exploded on to the lawn, why was the equipment move towards the pentagon, and why no evidence of shrapnel from a missile detonation?

a reply to: neutronflux

Maybe they never bothered with a missile or a plane. Perhaps when they did the reinforcements to the wall that was "hit" before the attack, they placed explosive charges to simulate a plane crashing there. I´m afraid any more than that I do not know. All I have seen is that the live footage is very suspect (of the planes), there are several witnesses who heard missiles (in respect to the towers), and there is no footage which is not doctored regarding the two cameras that "caught" the plane hitting the Pentagon. I wish I knew the truth, but after 16 years it seems less and less likely.