Thats 3 questionable points vs some 20 strong observations.
[edit on 3-10-2006 by Insolubrious]
Well, let's question/explain the strength of those observations then:
1. addresses 99% of concrete in WTC turned to dust due to million degree heat of device. If it were the case that the heat from the device still had
the effect to heat concrete at upper levels of the building, don't you think it would have been visually obvious, i.e. some sort of flash? That kind
of heat sort of makes things glow a nice cherry red in the least.
3. quick math tells me it requires roughly 3.6 kg of TNT to throw 22 tons of anything at around 80 fps, which is how fast it would have to go to reach
200m in about 7.5 sec. Does it really require a nuke to transmit that kind of force?
4. see 3 above and multiply by about 10 or so.
5. frankly it doesn't shock me to have glowing steel, even molten pools of the stuff considering the massive amount of potential energy contained in
any of the WTC buildings, to be released by just little old gravity.
8. see 5 above, same response. A 50 ton press is a pretty small thing to keep track of when roughly 900 feet of steel building falls down on top of
9. why does it require a nuke to vaproize human tissue considering 5 and 8 above?
11. so all footage taken by all sources was retouched to mask the 'true' color? Are you seriously reading these 'observations'? Is all brown
smoke/gas caused by a nuclear explosion?
12. Please explain why the tritiium in the exit signs would be insufficient to give the measured readings. Personal experience; the amount of radium
in one old-fashioned watch is enough (when spread out) to make contamination detectors go nuts in the area of nuclear submarine. Spreading out the
contamination from a bunch of exit signs on the planes would not shock me to be detectable. How elevated is 'elevated'? (And to imply US/Israeli
involvement bcz of it being a fusion weapon is just a tad feeding to the anti-semitic side of the CT realm, no?)
14. Is he actually trying to imply that bringing down not one but two 900 ft buildings wouldn't kick up a huge cloud of dut UNLESS brought down by a
17. This gentleman does realize that if someone is going to accrue enough bodily damage to die by inhaling radioactive contamination, it would be
easily detectable. In fact this statement (along with others) implies a general lack of knowledge by this individual as to how radiation and
contamination are different things entirely.
19. 'Water spraying contains fusion radioactiviy'... See end statement of 17 above. The only thing water can do is wash the stuff to some other
location, possibly diluting it in the interim. However, unless the stuff gets washed in the river, it will still sit there on the ground/in the
sewer/all over the place and be easily detectable using rudimentary rad detectors.
20. I doubt even the veracity of this statement. 'No bodies or ... etc found in the rubble'? First I ever heard that one. Proof?
21. see #1 above. Causing 200K gallons of water to flash to steam at the top of the building would have required a visible amount of heat to an
22. See #21 above, as well as various other above. To cause this kind of devastation with neutrons would have large scale activation of any metal in
the area. That didn't happen. Also, last I checked things don't explode when in a neutron flux; they get activated, baby!
23. 'Wide-scale'? You mean in the immediate area where two 900 ft buildings collapsed? That wouldn't have caused some damage to the surrounding
infrastucture, would it?
24. First I ever heard of it. Must be in with #11 with those media sources being part of the conspiracy.
Anyways, apologize that I didn't hit every one. Considering the above I hardly think I have to.
I never jump in on these, but on this I had to; ty!!!