fire not hot enough to melt steel at wtc ? here's proof

Even granite gives off radiation. Thought I'd help your plight Zaphod.

Because until the 757/767 EVERY plane that flew had DU counterweights. In fact most people STILL think that the 757/767 have DU in them. Even though it's been shown that they don't. And I'm talking about people that know aviation, not just every day people.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well for 1 why would they blame it on uranium in the planes? Didn't they think that people who now a little about planes or can do some simple research could find out that 757s and 767s do not carry uranium.

Good point. But, who were these people and what were their qualifications? Just asking so we know the whole story of who the government had "declare" these things. Like the "air is safe" declaration that the EPA was forced to make.

Zaphod

your reasoning here reminds me of an old chemical industry feel-good (i.e., propaganda) commercial, which ended with the tag line:

"Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible."

Ten days of pouring water continuously into the bathtub, Hudson river leaking in, and pumping it out again, and still those amazingly high levels, from exit signs and watch dials.

Ok, you won me over.

Oh sorry, how stupid of me not to jump on the mini nuke bandwagon, and try to point out that there are OTHER causes of tritium release. I mean, why use stupid things like logic, and evidence, when you just point at something and scream "OH MY GOD! TRITIUM! IT MUST BE A MINI NUKE!"

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Oh sorry, how stupid of me not to jump on the mini nuke bandwagon, and try to point out that there are OTHER causes of tritium release.

I mean, why use stupid things like logic, and evidence, when you just point at something and scream "OH MY GOD! TRITIUM! IT MUST BE A MINI NUKE!"

Well step back from your polemical microscope and look at the big picture.

Towers blow up like grey flowers, spewing sublimating metals, the cores are knocked out, concrete and steel vaporize and float across lower Manhattan, etc, etc--even people's socks catch on fire, for Chrissakes, and then 10 days later, after pumping water through the wreckage nonstop, you find massively elevated tritium levels in the WTC basement.

Ok, exit signs and watch dials. Sign me up.

And you have NO reports of radiation sickness (not cancer, the actual sickness you get from radiation poisoning), NO massive blast damage to OTHER structures in the area, NO massive shock wave (which ANY nuke would produce), NO EMP effects, NO flash damage (shadows burned into walls, etc). But you're right. It MUST have been a nuke. Because we know now, thanks to you that ONLY a nuclear blast could have caused the towers to come down and tritiated water to be found.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And you have NO reports of radiation sickness (not cancer, the actual sickness you get from radiation poisoning),

Wrong. We're seeing elevated cancer rates in lower Manhattan and first responders are dying at an alarming rate.

NO massive blast damage to OTHER structures in the area,

Wrong. You had melted vehicles all around, you had curdled steel I-beams on the ripped out section of the Banker's Trust bldg.

NO massive shock wave (which ANY nuke would produce),

Wrong. You had a massive shock wave that literally lifted people off their feet and blew them forward for yards on end. Survivors described it like a tornado of superhot gravel carrying them away. Get thee to Google video.

NO EMP effects, NO flash damage (shadows burned into walls, etc).

Wrong. You had white clouds coming from the basements just before the towers fell. They would have been placed deep in the sub-basements, to cut the core columns at the foundations.

Other than that, spot on.

Please READ what I said. I said NOT CANCER BUT THE ACTUAL SICKNESS FROM RADIATION POISONING. The effects of radiation poisoning would have been seen within DAYS of being at Ground Zero, and it would have been on a large scale with all the people around there. There was NO radiation poisoning seen.

A nuclear shock wave would have decimated other buildings and an area of subway tunnels for a large area around the WTC. At the least it would have blown the foundations of at least one or two other buildings completely out. And how did they pull it off so that only ONE tower came down at a time? Use two? That would have INCREASED the damage to other buildings, and the radiation poisoning.

Where are your pictures of shadows burned into the subway tunnel walls? There was NO report of that effect anywhere. I would think that people would be SLIGHTLY curious as to how the shadow of something got burned into a wall under the WTC. Ohhh, white clouds! That's proof of the flash effects of a nuke!

You had BURNED vehicles all over the place, but I haven't seen pictures of a "melted" one. With all the burning debris, and the towers coming down on them I'd be more surprised if we DIDN'T have burned cars all over the place.

Originally posted by gottago

They would have been placed deep in the sub-basements, to cut the core columns at the foundations.

Then how exactly do you explain the fact that the collapses clearly started where the planes hit the buildings?

A nuke, besides being a preposterous idea, would not explain the collapses starting there.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Please READ what I said.

I did. The vast majority of it was simply wrong. You seem to use any argument at any time, regardless of the evidence. It's tiresome.

"NO shock wave," but there was a massive shock wave.

Nothing but jets and kerosene, yet masive energy being released and massively elevated tritium levels.

Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

This is not reasonable debate, its like chasing fleas.

Interesting discussion.

So lets assume it was a mini-nuke for a moment. This one is easy to accept as it explains the building turning to powder & further explains why paper was unaffected (a nuclear blast affects anything solid or capable of absorbing energy). Video evidence shows the towers exploding creating plumes of smoke almost identical to an underground nuke.

Now, do any of you seriously believe a regular mini-nuke would be used if large amounts of radiation could later be found at the crime scene? But again lets assume for a moment the military had developed a low-radiation nuke. That is a nuke that would cause physical damage but with little or no collateral damage. I guess Im talking about the type of nuke that Bush would ideally like to use on the Iranian power plants. Such a weapon would be a god-send & you can immediately see the military advantages of having such a weapon in your stockpile. You could obliterate a city and walk in shortly after & setup camp for example. You could take out military targets without killing civilians nearby. The uses are endless. I think its quite feasible the military would research to produce such a weapon. The main problem with nukes until now has been the issue of 'fallout'. Now do any of you know for fact such a weapon doesnt exist? We've had 50 years to develop such technology.

If such a weapon does exist, we may have our answer.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

Originally posted by gottago
I did. The vast majority of it was simply wrong. You seem to use any argument at any time, regardless of the evidence. It's tiresome.

"NO shock wave," but there was a massive shock wave.

Nothing but jets and kerosene, yet masive energy being released and massively elevated tritium levels.

Etc. etc. ad nauseum.

This is not reasonable debate, its like chasing fleas.

Ok, there was a shock wave, but a nuclear shock wave would have destroyed more than one tower.

Where was the radiation poisoning?

Where was the EMP?

Where was the flash?

There were too many effects that are associated with a nuke that WEREN'T there.

Contrary to what you would have everyone believe tritium is not the smoking gun of a nuclear bomb. But that doesn't mean a damn thing to you does it, since you're so desperate to believe that there are these mini nukes out there that have none of the effects of a nuclear bomb, but brought the towers down.

Nonchalant, even if there IS a low radiation device out there, you STILL should have had an EMP effect that we didn't have. And there still should have been enough of a shock wave to cause a lot more damage than there was, not just knock people around. It should have caused massive damage to other structures around the towers.

And not to mention as was asked a couple posts ago, how did they set off a mini nuke in the basement, but start the collapse from where the planes hit the towers? WHY? If you're going to use this miracle bomb in the basement, but thermite/thermate/other explosives in the rest of the tower, why now use them in the basement as well? It doesn't make sense!

There were too many effects that are associated with a nuke that WEREN'T there.

Nonchalant, even if there IS a low radiation device out there, you STILL should have had an EMP effect that we didn't have. And there still should have been enough of a shock wave to cause a lot more damage than there was, not just knock people around. It should have caused massive damage to other structures around the towers.

Ok firstly if it was a nuke a lot of the energy from the blast would have been absorbed by the building itself. It was a very strong structure hence the reason many of us have such a problem with fires causing their collapse. Secondly, you are talking about a conventional nuke. And I have a real problem also with a conventional nuke being used due to the reasons you mention. But what if such a device exists that displays few characteristics of a conventional nuke while still causing the same immediate physical damage?

And not to mention as was asked a couple posts ago, how did they set off a mini nuke in the basement, but start the collapse from where the planes hit the towers? WHY? If you're going to use this miracle bomb in the basement, but thermite/thermate/other explosives in the rest of the tower, why now use them in the basement as well? It doesn't make sense!

In response to this statement, let me say firstly I personally believe thermite was used in the upper sections of the building. The mini-nuke was placed in the centre of the building to be detonated once the upper sections began to collapse. And charges were placed in the basement to destroy the base of the core.

But if you're going to do that why not just use conventional explosives? There are several conventional weapons out there that will cause massive damage, and not give you the bad effects of a nuclear weapon. The point of nuclear weapons is to cause the most damage possible with a single weapon. If you're just looking for massive damage, and don't want the radioactivity, and other side effects just use an FAE, or a GBU-28 type device? Much cleaner, with similar damage effects since the WTC is a soft target.

Where in the center though? If you put it up above ground level then you ARE going to have a shock wave escape the building. And if the building absorbed the shock wave, what knocked the people down?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If you're just looking for massive damage, and don't want the radioactivity, and other side effects just use an FAE, or a GBU-28 type device? Much cleaner, with similar damage effects since the WTC is a soft target.

This could be for a number of reasons. For one, it may be 'they' didnt want to take the chance the demolition may not be successful using conventional explosives. I mean this was a very very strong core consisting of very thick steel. Another could be the time it would have taken to place all the charges as compared to placing one nuke. Another &/or additional reason could be to ensure nothing & no-one survived the demolition. No witnesses, no evidence. Even a partly damaged printer could 'talk' if it were examined closely enough. And theres always the risk some of the explosive may not have detonated & survived the blast leaving incriminating evidence. A nuke solves all these issues.

Originally posted by Zaphod58Where in the center though? If you put it up above ground level then you ARE going to have a shock wave escape the building. And if the building absorbed the shock wave, what knocked the people down?

Maybe this explains why the shock-wave was present but minimal? If the nuke was placed in the core of the building (as it appeared to be as the debris was ejected from the centre of the building) much of the steel & concrete would have absorbed the blast but not all of it knocking some people down.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

Yeah, but the FAE would cause almost the same effect as a nuke. They've even been known to have similar blast footprints as smaller nukes.




But even if the WTC WAS a fairly sturdy robust structure, concrete isn't going to contain a nuclear blast, even a small one. You would STILL get the EMP effect. Every nuke gives off an EMP, and we didn't see that in NY on 9/11. We should have seen SOME kind of EMP effect, even if it was small, if we are talking nuclear weapons.

Source Region Electro-magnetic Pulse [SREMP] is produced by low-altitude nuclear bursts. An effective net vertical electron current is formed by the asymmetric deposition of electrons in the atmosphere and the ground, and the formation and decay of this current emits a pulse of electromagnetic radiation in directions perpendicular to the current. The asymmetry from a low-altitude explosion occurs because some electrons emitted downward are trapped in the upper millimeter of the Earth�s surface while others, moving upward and outward, can travel long distances in the atmosphere, producing ionization and charge separation. A weaker asymmetry can exist for higher altitude explosions due to the density gradient of the atmosphere.

Within the source region, peak electric fields greater than 10 5 V/m and peak magnetic fields greater than 4,000 A/m can exist. These are much larger than those from HEMP and pose a considerable threat to military or civilian systems in the affected region. The ground is also a conductor of electricity and provides a return path for electrons at the outer part of the deposition region toward the burst point. Positive ions, which travel shorter distances than electrons and at lower velocities, remain behind and recombine with the electrons returning through the ground. Thus, strong magnetic fields are produced in the region of ground zero. When the nuclear detonation occurs near to the ground, the SREMP target may not be located in the electromagnetic far field but may instead lie within the electro-magnetic induction region. In this regime the electric and magnetic fields of the radiation are no longer perpendicular to one another, and many of the analytic tools with which we understand EM coupling in the simple plane-wave case no longer apply. The radiated EM field falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the deposition region (near to the currents the EMP does not appear to come from a point source).

As a result, the region where the greatest damage can be produced is from about 3 to 8 km from ground zero. In this same region structures housing electrical equipment are also likely to be severely damaged by blast and shock. According to the third edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, by S. Glasstone and P. Dolan, �the threat to electrical and electronic systems from a surface-burst EMP may extend as far as the distance at which the peak overpressure from a 1-megaton burst is 2 pounds per square inch.�

www.fas.org...

I understand EMP & what you are saying. But as I stated earlier we should have also seen higher levels of radiation IF it were a conventional nuke. This is my point. Im assuming this wasnt conventional.

Yet clearly the damage was very similar to a conventional nuke. So we perhaps need to consider something in between? A device or weapon we are not familiar with. Hence one we cant explain based on our understanding of conventional nuclear weapons.

Fact is, fire doesnt pulverise concrete. A building collapse doesnt pulverise concrete. So we need to look elsewhere for the cause. We dont just accept that as the cause because we have no other ready explanation.

Whatever it was that caused the towers to peel like a banana was something beyond our understanding yet one that exhibited many but not all the characteristics of a nuclear device. A weapon we dont understand & so cant fully comprehend or explain. If such a weapon exists, it would have been perfect to carry out the perfect crime wihout the risk of detection.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

[edit on 7-4-2007 by Nonchalant]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Where was the radiation poisoning?

Where was the EMP?

Where was the flash?

A case could be built for each of those but I would bet anything that you would contest each one for petty and illogical reasons, saying "this doesn't mean that", which is a lame argument because it could easily go either way even if you offered alternatives that made any sense, and yet rather than be on the fence, you would still firmly state the case to have been impossible and/or mock and laugh at the idea. Why? I bet you think we're still in the 1960's as far as nuke tech goes. And I bet you think if we weren't, you would know about it, as if someone has an obligation to keep you informed of classified weapons developments.

Cars were set on fire a block away without anything but dust touching them, and yet you still ask "Where was the EMP?" Let that serve as an example of what I'm proposing to you above. You'd probably just ignore magnetic shielding effects to ask why EVERYTHING didn't go down, or assume that the EMP from a mini-nuke would have to be monstrous despite how small the bomb we're considering would be, and leave off there with no further consideration. Ultimately it doesn't matter what we say because you're never going to change your mind. I'm saving myself trouble here and summing up a would-be string of posts in a single one.


Sam Cohen even says pure fusion devices exist. I suppose he's just another "disgruntled employee".

Btw, there are thousands of people affected by very serious illnesses to this day that worked at Ground Zero, and these illnesses have not been formally studied. Indira Singh reported various symptoms consistent with radiation poisoning. There is a medical doctor by the name of Ed Ward that is trying to inform people that, in his professional opinion, there was hands-down a miniature nuclear device used at the towers. Again, yet you ask, "Why is no one sick?"

Just reread what I posted in the first two paragraphs of this post and consider how sound your reasoning is at this point, when you make so many assumptions as to what did or didn't happen without even looking to see if what you're assuming is correct. We talk about miniature pure fusion devices, and you talk like we're considering the same two bombs dropped on Japan. I care less and less though, to be honest, especially considering so many people can watch a 47-story steel-framed building fall into itself at free-fall and don't see a damned thing wrong with it.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by bsbray11]

ANY kind of nuclear weapon has EMP though. It's part of the process that MAKES it a nuclear weapon. If you don't have EMP then it's not a nuke. The only time you won't get an EMP from a nuke is EXTREMELY high altitude airbursts.

In a nuclear detonation, gamma rays are produced. These gamma rays interact with the surrounding air molecules by the Compton effect to produce electrons. In this effect,
"...the gamma ray (primary) photon collides with an electron and some of the energy of the photon is transferred to the electron. Another (secondary) photon, with less energy, then moves off in a new direction at an angle to the direction of motion of the primary photon. Consequently, Compton interaction results in a change of direction (or scattering) of the gamma-ray photon and degradation in its energy. The electron which, after colliding with the primary photon, recoils in such a manner as to conserve energy and momentum is called a Compton (recoil) electron"(2)
These Compton-recoil electrons travel outward at a faster rate than the remaining heavier, positively charged ions. This separation of charges produces a strong electric field. The lower-energy electrons produced by collisions with the Compton electrons are attracted to the positive ions. These ions produce a conduction current. This current is directly related to the strength of the Compton effect. Also, this conduction current flows in a direction opposite to the electrical field produced by the Compton effect. Because of this, the conduction current limits the electrical field and stops it from increasing.(3-5)

www.geocities.com...

If you have a mini nuke, then you have EMP. It's that simple. You get a gamma ray burst and you get EMP. It's all part of the nuclear process during the detonation. If you don't have those things, then you're talking about a conventional weapon.