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.

 

Let's End The Controlled Demolition Theory!

page: 16
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   
NO - the rest of the thread does not talk about nukes. From what I can see it really started on page 15.

Secondly, I am not making any claims. Did you not read the quote from Tully Construction - what did they say?? or do I have to requote it for you.

Don't try and reason me out - Thanks

[edit on 28-11-2006 by aob982]




posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Oops, got my threads confused. For that I do apologize.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
here are 20 points to consider from the blue star media group:

video.google.com...

it also contains two EMP affected video clips at the end.


[edit on 28-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I never actually stated it was a suitcase nuke though, I said micro nuke.


And I'm telling you there isn't one shred of evidence that any nuclear weapon was used at ground zero and the evidence supporting micro nukes even exist is nonexistant.



Also I didn't suggest the yield. I was mearly trying to offer some insight that such devices exist and can be made this small and portable by a single man. It is rumored they can be even smaller than this and without any HE trigger. Have you heard of red mercury?


You didn't suggest the yield - but you sure as hell suggested a suitcase bomb. Suitcase bombs can't have yeilds so small they are undetectable.

Note your word "rumoured". Until you can prove this technology even exists you've got no basis for your theory. I could easily say that invisible midgets blew up the towers. Just beceause you can't prove it didn't happen doesn't mean it did.



en.wikipedia.org...




"Red mercury is a mythical substance"


Nuff Said...



Why use mini-nukes, less practical? On the contrary it would actually be much more practical than using TNT if used correctly, simply because it would require much less time and manpower to set up, also much easier to plant without being noticed.


Not true.

You can't just shrink a few hundred nukes down to the undetectable size and have any advantage over TNT. The point is, you'd have to make the nukes so small for them to be undetected, they would have a smaller effect than TNT.

Can you imagine the planning?



Bush: We're bringing down the towers with a controlled demolition! Mwuhahaha!

Cheney: Cooool, how are we gonna go about doing this?

Demolition Worker: We could secretley plant TNT in the building.

Bush: No that's booooring. Let's use nukes.


It has no significant advantages considering:

a) TNT would have had the same effect
b) It is scientifically proven the towers would have come down by themselves after
the plane impact. Which they did. Why go to the point of using nukes when the building would have fallen anyway?

Theoretically to let off mini-nukes undetected on 9/11, you would have to plant thousands of them. The same amount of mini-nukes as TNT.



Remember this is a huge dense building with a massive steel core! The structure would go along way to dampening the explosive energy, much like the nevada underground test sites. If you bury it the effect is heavily dampened. If it were detonated outside the building then the effects would of been way more dramatic obviously since there would be no resistance or massive amounts of steel and concrete to absorb the effects.


Well WHY did the core fall last? You're trying to tell me nukes were used to cut the core but somehow the core fell last?

And why are you even attempting to compare a nuke going off 700ft under absorbant soil to an above ground detonation in a skyscrapper? They have nothing in common.



Who said it was 1kt? If it were 0.001kt the effect would barely cover the WTC area


Covering the area means covering the area.... not select sections of a building. In other words if a 0.001kt nuke was detonated that would cover the WTC area, the whole building would have been blown up. It wouldn't have collapsed.

You're suggesting small nuclear explosions within the building causing squibs etc etc. That would require a nuclear weapon smaller than 0.0001kt. Which has never been made and for good reason. There's not point!



I expect the yield would be higher seeing how the WTC would go along way to absorb these affects.


Where's your scientific proof?

Show me something that indicates the WTC's could have absorbed a nuclear blast from within.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
EMP doesnt "affect", it wipes OUT electronics



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Some fine points you bring and I understand where you are coming from and I don't have all the answers for you right now but I do not see any other way to produce this sub 100 micron pulverization of 99% of concrete in the floors. If you do know please enlighten me! It seems there is no way that this could be the result of just conventional demo charges or the result of a pancaking building.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
EMP doesnt "affect", it wipes OUT electronics


Depends on how strong the EMP is does it not? If this is true then EMP either wipes out electronics or does nothing to them, and nothing in between?

[edit on 28-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
EMP doesnt "affect", it wipes OUT electronics


Depends on how strong the EMP is does it not? If this is true then EMP either wipes out electronics or does nothing to them, and nothing in between?


Yeah, an EMP is pretty much just a wave of electrons and a magnetic field. You could make EMP guns or EMP bombs yourself pretty easily, and they'd create weak EMPs that might fail small resistors at close range, or things like that.

And the reason an EMP dissipates with distance is that everything it encounters offers "resistance" or puts the electrons/magnetism to "use", so to speak, which is how a simple Faraday cage/shield of simple aluminum foil or copper mesh works (absorbs the energy). The buildings had tons of steel columns, aluminum cladding, and even concrete will conduct electricity at sufficient voltage. Small pure fusion devices couldn't be expected to put out the same strength EMPs as larger fission/fusion h-bombs, and the farther you go out from the blast, and especially the more mass it has to go through, the weaker the EMP is.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I do not see any other way to produce this sub 100 micron pulverization of 99% of concrete in the floors.



Do you have a source for 99% of the concrete being pulverised that much?



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeftBehind

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I do not see any other way to produce this sub 100 micron pulverization of 99% of concrete in the floors.



Do you have a source for 99% of the concrete being pulverised that much?


Yes there are a few sources that claim this:

www.letsroll911.org...
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? A peer-review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research

yannone.blogspot.com...
Were nuclear fusion devices used to demolish WTC?

www.saunalahti.fi...
Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11

miami.indymedia.org...
The US Government's Usage of a Hydrogen Bomb at WTC

video.google.com...
WMD at the WTC trailer

www.911eyewitness.com...
Open Letter to Prof. Steven Jones 23 Reasons 4 Fusion

Maybe it was less as these perhaps are not the greatest sources, and I have heard claims in the 80% area, but it was an awfully large amount regardless. I doubt they pulled these numbers out of the air and were sourced elsewhere too.


[edit on 28-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

www.letsroll911.org...
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? A peer-review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research

1. Disintegration of 99% of concrete into ultra-fine dust (50% of particles under 100 microns in samples from three locations, Dr. Thomas Cahill and his group measured concentrations of particles in ranges from 0.09 to 2.5 microns).


Where did they get this? And even they are only saying half of the 99% was under 100 microns.



yannone.blogspot.com...
Were nuclear fusion devices used to demolish WTC?

1. Pulverization of 99 percent of concrete into ultra-fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device's million-degree heat rapidly expanded water vapor in the concrete floors.


If this was recorded by "official studies", then why don't they give a link? Is there really a study that says 99% of the concrete was turned into ultra-fine dust? Or is this another case of conspiracy sites quoting each other and treating it like fact?



www.saunalahti.fi...
Writings of a Finnish Military Expert on 9/11

1. Pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapour 1000-fold in the concrete floors.


Looks to me like he is repeating what the other site said, again without sources, or links to the "official studies".



miami.indymedia.org...
The US Government's Usage of a Hydrogen Bomb at WTC

1. pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapor in the concrete floors.


Again the same "fact" is presented without any source but "official studies."


video.google.com...
WMD at the WTC trailer

Right, that's the trailer for a video produced by the guy above, essentially the same claim and still without a source.



www.911eyewitness.com...
Open Letter to Prof. Steven Jones 23 Reasons 4 Fusion

1. pulverization of 99% of concrete into ultra fine dust as recorded by official studies. Concrete dust was created instantly throughout the towers when the fusion device million degree heat rapidly expanded water vapor in the concrete floors.


Wow, why does it sound like they are all quoting each other?

Well I think the last three links come from the same people, and the first link does reference 911 eyewitness.

So unless someone can provide these unnamed official studies, I think this is a case of repeating a lie often enough.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Yes not the greatest sources agreed, if anyone could find some more sources I would be interested in reading them. It may of been based around this research or something like this:
pubs.usgs.gov...

Try searching on 'WTC micron' with google, there are plenty of results to investigate.

Still whatever the exact percentage was its a large amount of micron scaled dust particles which included not only concrete but various metals too were created in the destruction. I doubt Steve Jones and co. just make this up without having sources to back them up when guys like yourself ask them. Perhaps we should try asking the 9/11 eyewitness team or others how they arrived at this figure may reveal some further insight into this.

Check out this

www.epa.gov...='Particle%20Size%20world%20trade%20center%20concrete

EPA’ samples show that of concrete particles found

over 35% were of 30 microns
20% were of 0.3 microns
100 microns accounted for 5%
300 micron particles were less than 1%
0.1 micron particles accounted for 5%.

www.gnn.tv...

Hoffmans earlier research:

911research.wtc7.net...



[edit on 28-11-2006 by Insolubrious]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28/11/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by aob982
It hurts to read this thread - come on people...

Any one with a small bit of intelligence can see that all those buildings (WT7 included) did not collapse... they were disintegrated - pulverized. Everything and everyone.


Ohh...I see...like always, if you don't agree you must be dumb...I guess that leaves you and some others out of the equation....



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Anyways, back to the question of why in 1993 there were no seismic recordings of the explosives in wtc, probably it has something to do with the fact that a plan for Advanced National Seismic System which calls for increased urban seismic instrumentation, including in New York City was implemented back in 1999, six years after the 1993 attack.

It is very possible that back then there were no seismic stations close enough to wtc to record the explosives, but any charge no matter how small will leave a seismic signature if there are seismic stations nearby.


[edit on 28-11-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   
I think that they are being maliciously deceitful in the sources you quote.

The EPA study must be one of the official studies they are talking about.

However, what they should be saying is that the concrete present in the dust examined by the EPA, was 99% 100 microns or less.

That is what the study says.

Instead they choose to twist it into 99% of all of the concrete was 100 microns or less.

The EPA study does not say the amount turned into dust, they only examined the dust.

Why is it supsicious or surprising that they only found small peices of concrete in a study that only looked at the dust?


Determination of a Diagnostic Signature for World Trade Center Dust using Scanning Electron Microscopy Point Counting Techniques Pg. 3

Representative aliquots of WTC bulk dust samples were dry sieved through a 150 μm (100 mesh) ultrasonic sieve.


The study takes WTC dust, runs it through a seive, and then examined it. Nothing they examine is going to be very big and the size of the concrete is no surprise at all.


If this indeed is the source for "99% of the concrete was pulverized into 100 microns or less" then the phrase is nothing but an outright misrepresentation of the facts.

And again, there is nothing suspicious or surprising about finding concrete dust in dust at ground zero.

[edit on 28-11-2006 by LeftBehind]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Isn't the micro-nukes theory pretty easy to test?

Someone who lives in New York, on this forum, go to ground zero with a Geiger-Mueller counter and check the background rate.

You can get Russian ones off eBay for around 50 bucks.

Unless you are arguing that they were fusion bombs? I think that the success rate of hydrogen bombs ignited by fission bombs is so low that they wouldn’t dare, let alone ignited by conventional explosives.

I see no reason why military grade high explosives would be unable to turn the buildings into concrete dust.



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I always like it when they note the "squibs" shooting out of the building like it was an empty building or something. Maybe the squibs are the sewer lines bursting and we all know well most of us know water doesn't compress. The molten metal is probably copper buss bars melting with thousands of amps to heat them up. Now the nuke idea is a grand one the can follow the traces that were used to kill a spy but found none after the collapse. Oh well thats entertainment.

mikell



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
www.911myths.com...

As far as this page goes, I have to totally disagree. In the alleged video, Silverstien says "pull it". These people try and twist the meaning, and say its refering to pulling cables?....bs complete bs.. As Jim Marrs put it, the biggest conspiracy theory and most rediculous theory is the 9/11 commisions report on what supposably happened.. The day I believe that the terrorist passport flew out of a plane crashing into a building, is the day monkeys fly...



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yandros
Isn't the micro-nukes theory pretty easy to test?

Someone who lives in New York, on this forum, go to ground zero with a Geiger-Mueller counter and check the background rate.

You can get Russian ones off eBay for around 50 bucks.

Unless you are arguing that they were fusion bombs? I think that the success rate of hydrogen bombs ignited by fission bombs is so low that they wouldn’t dare, let alone ignited by conventional explosives.

I see no reason why military grade high explosives would be unable to turn the buildings into concrete dust.


Fusion bombs, or hydrogen bombs need a fision reaction first, because you need to raise the temperature to about 50 million Farenheit to produce a fusion reaction, and you would still have traces of radiation and many people in New York would have inhaled that radiation and we would clearly see that there was a hydrogen bomb used... Not to mention that tehre would have been evidence of this in the seismic reading, and the major destruction it would have left at least half of New York in. The hydrogen, mini-nuke theory is completly out of the question.

Military grade explosives would have made a seismic signature, and the explosions would have been heard many blocks away, which would have been easily seen in the seismic recordings of that day.

[edit on 28-11-2006 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link   
I've decided the fastest way to kill a discussion about something must be to throw out the most inane, assinine statement you can and act like anyone who won't walk the line of insanity is a shill - and then totally derail a discussion.

So, with that said, I guess this thread is now discussing the "nukes brought down the building" diversion. That's great. I'm going to go find some folks who want to act intelligent.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join