blah. hang on.

[edit on 30-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Those are some interesting pictures that have piqued my curiosity to say the least. Those far away birdseye view shots remind me of an intricate detailed model froma movie set. Are you sure that they aren't detailed studio models? Nice shots --- thanks for the upload.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

And why aren't all the papers burning too if a "nuke" did that??

The pillars didn't turn to ash.

Alpha radiation. It can be blocked by a simple sheet of paper. Do some homework on fusion nukes and you'll realize they aren't your grandma's nukes.

One of their signatures is that you get such incongruous results. Paper unburnt, but car engine blocks melting.

I'm wondering if it's aluminum or steel engine blocks that determines if vehicles were affected.

As for why other stuff didn't catch fire, an engine block is a serious hunk of metal and a great neutron trap; a lightpole or a chainlink fence doesn't have that density.

BTW, the incomparable Judy Wood has a great pic of a curdled steel I-beam from the damaged facade of the Banker's Trust Building on her website. It was some 30 or so floors up, part of the facade that was ripped off, and the end of the beam looks like spaghetti poking out into the void.

Now that is bizarre.

I posted this on another thread but what the hell.


IIB said himself that he's trying to put an end to pure fusion theories at the WTC, ie "nuke" theories. How does he do this? By focusing solely on the burning cars, all around the surrounding blocks of the WTC, which as we see is a very speculative issue.

What he refuses to allow on his thread, without all sorts of accusations of trying to derail the thread or throwing out "red herrings" or etc., are these sorts of evidences:












C4 and thermite will not do ANY of those things!


Anyone wanting a legitimate discussion with IIB may as well go home, because he has stated his agenda clearly in this thread already, and that agenda is to "shut down" theories of pure fusion devices. He isn't going to bother to consider the above.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Well actually that thread was very specific about the cars being burned or "melted" by nukes as evidence of nukes.

I provided tons of materials and such for you to try to use to build case examples of nukes having ignited the cars. The flip side is I basically destroyed the claim that cars were lit by nukes.

In there supporting evidence of nukes being used in general is non-applicable, but if you want to argue that nuke lit the cars and use those example of high level WTC 'explosions' or photos of actual nukes in conjuction you're only hurting your cars ignited by nukes even more, due to the 'selective' and absurd amount of cars not affacted by it.

Your on better ground if your arguing that nukes somewhere in there caused some of what resulted in the aftermath, but didn't effect the cars by blast/etc waves. If you're going to argue that the WTC 'mushroom clouds', and the cars that were burnt were each the result of nukes then you're argument is desperately gasping for air like the victims down there trapped under the cloud. The problem with your cloud images is you're suggesting geometric patterns, and the obvious consequence of such would be the cars being geometrically affected. That didn't happen, and to argue otherwise is completely irrational in my view.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
The problem with your cloud images is you're suggesting geometric patterns, and the obvious consequence of such would be the cars being geometrically affected.

First of all, there is NO problem with the images. They show what happened that day.

The question is, if you expect symmetry across the affected area, shouldn't you also expect symmetry of the environment itself outside of the WTC towers for this to be possible? When you have an asymmetric environment, why should any effects cause the affected area to end up symmetrical?

Those images all present very specific problems besides the obvious visuals.

The image of the Winter Garden shows massive debris in front of it, ejected about 600 feet, and additional debris was ejected further and went through the glass roof. This must be the third or fourth time I've told you high explosives don't do this. You simply respond, 'it wasn't a typical demolition'. That's exactly my point.

The picture with the debris circled in red shows a piece of falling debris spewing heavy dust, just as the debris you see in the last image. This is sublimation. Nothing else logically satisfies the problem, unless you think fine conrete dust was plastered all over the back, and then came out in a seemingly-endless supply.

Same with the spire, that isn't all concrete dust and drywall. It's coming off of the columns.

The "meteorite" is an obvious problem for thermites and high explosives.

[edit on 7-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by badw0lf
Smoldering hot debris, flying in all directions, landing inside cars full of highly combustible materials, causing them to ignite and then torch the car. Flammable materials abound in your modern vehicle. It does not require the petrol to ignite or a flash burn for the evidence portrayed here. Mere slow burning and eventual conflagration of the entire vehicle.

Smoldering hot debris, flying in all directions, landing around GREEN wood and leaf, eventually extinguishing. Green wood is hard to burn.

Put it this way, you run up to a car with it's window open and stick your arm in with a lighter lit, and put it to the seat cover. In no time, it will be ablaze.

Exactly

As I was reading this thread, I just couldn’t understand what people where getting at? The obvious explanation was Debris; remember when the planes hit the engine was found a few blocks away. Picture all the debris that day, from the Planes hitting and then from the buildings coming down, Debris are going to fly everywhere, including onto and into cars.

Cars don’t need an “explosion” to catch on fire and melt, just look at any city riot anywhere in the world; a single match can set the car up. Now try it with hot flying debris. You get basicly the same effect.

Mikey

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I never said there was a problem with the images themselves, I meant there's a problem with the cars melted by nukes if we're to take the shape of the towers clouds in those images as evidence of nukes causing those shapes.

Argue this with someone else, please. I've already told you what I think about the cars several times.

How is a 'stream' of chaos and dust in that comparable to vaporizing into a gas state without first turning into liquid?
That is kind of interesting tho. I wonder what that looks like on video.

You wonder what sublimation looks like?

It looks like this:

Watch video of the "spire", like I posted in that other micronukes thread, and then please come try to argue that the dust wasn't the trail in the air from when the "spire" merely dropped out from that location only seconds before.

Which is exactly why it's odd that "dust" continues to roll off from the columns.

Btw, I think that thread backfired, because you really can see the stuff coming off of columns if you watch it closely enough. Poor video quality isn't an excuse for not really watching.

Um, what meteorite???

That's the nickname given to the big mass of steel rebar and concrete and whatever else that was pressed densely together and subjected to massive heat.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by bsbray11
Argue this with someone else, please. I've already told you what I think about the cars several times.

SO then you admit that they aren't evidence of nukes?

Reread what I said and you won't have to ask me to repeat myself.

A dust cloud from a nuclear bomb that was detonated 635' below surface has nothing in common with x material being superheated from it's solid state to its gas state. I didn't even know steel has a gas state????

Look at the image again. You say "dust cloud". That's no "dust cloud" coming out of the ground. That's material sublimating. That's why there's a bunch of crap flying through the air trailing "dust" for so far. I posted a quote from a paper on the spire thread that talks about research on the sublimation of various metals by exposing them to radiation.

That image has absolutely no use in this. That image was from a detonation 635' below surface.

So I guess the physics is completely different and nothing sublimates or is even remotely related to any nuclear reaction or effects of them, because you bothered to look up the fact that it was 635 below the surface.

It was also a fission bomb. That's an even bigger distinction to make. Fission bombs wouldn't be used in the towers.

The point was that all of the little "branches" or "ridges" or whatever you want to call them, are debris sublimating as they fall. That's why I posted it, not because I wanted to get into an argument with you over whether or not that particular device was used. You get what I'm saying?

Case Closed.

You're ridiculous.

So is it, "dust" falling of the cores, or is it the the cores vapourizing?

Why do I put "dust" in quotes, jackass?

Do you know where that came from? Did you know that fires and pools of molten metals existed in the piles for months? How does that prove a nuke? Is that the only explaination? Is that the best explaination?

Probably, unless you want to argue thermite did that, which I seriously doubt, and you would also be seeing a lot of molten iron, considering that's at least half of the byproduct.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Look at the image again. You say "dust cloud". That's no "dust cloud" coming out of the ground. That's material sublimating. That's why there's a bunch of crap flying through the air trailing "dust" for so far. I posted a quote from a paper on the spire thread that talks about research on the sublimation of various metals by exposing them to radiation.

So that's material (DIRT) vaporizing?

I didn't know sand (or steel) comes in gas form??

That image has absolutely no use in this. That image was from a detonation 635' below surface.

So I guess the physics is completely different and nothing sublimates or is even remotely related to any nuclear reaction or effects of them, because you bothered to look up the fact that it was 635 below the surface.

It was also a fission bomb. That's an even bigger distinction to make. Fission bombs wouldn't be used in the towers.

Yes, the physics would be different because it's a large yield fission bomb beiung detonated below ground. You're comparing it to the towers which were more than opposite in height above ground.

Different kind of bomb.
Opposite nature / location of detonation.
Different materials surrounding it.
Case Closed.

The point was that all of the little "branches" or "ridges" or whatever you want to call them, are debris sublimating as they fall.

So gases are heavy enough to come crashing down?

Case Closed.

You're ridiculous.

I'm not the one who believes nuclear bombs were used at WTC, regardless of how improbable it is, how many key concepts get debunked, how much evidence I have to misinterpret to maintain this belief, how many target topic threads I have to derail with the same arguments, and so on...

Do you know where that came from? Did you know that fires and pools of molten metals existed in the piles for months? How does that prove a nuke? Is that the only explaination? Is that the best explaination?

Probably, unless you want to argue thermite did that, which I seriously doubt, and you would also be seeing a lot of molten iron, considering that's at least half of the byproduct.

It depends on how much thermite you're talking about. Considering the NASA thermal images, it's not like we've seen everything of that nature that came out of that thing.

Just an idea I would like to put forward.

I could imagine the proximity effects of the bombs were not radial outside the WTC proximity. Whether its due to the chaotic nature of matter falling down, matter getting in the way and the deflection and absorption of its effects in the collapse and so forth. I think the idea was that the vast majority of the explosive energy went into the building and it did, but certain effects were escaping. Sort of like light shining through small holes in a wall into a dark room, or like a spot light or a torch.

Perhaps a good word to describe it would be a 'scattered' proximity effect. Whether its neutrons or EMP, it seems like the effects or pulses have shot out in random directions and varying power rather than an evenly distributed radial proximity which for some reason IIB assumes it must be. This is perhaps why some cars were melted whilst others were not.

I could also imagine the path of EMP being rather fractal and resembling a fork of lightning, considering its an electro magnetic pulse, rather than it being a even radial effect.

Here is a picture that shows how i mean by a fractal and scattered effect:




[edit on 20-6-2007 by VicRH]

Originally posted by VicRH

Perhaps a good word to describe it would be a 'scattered' proximity effect. Whether its neutrons or EMP, it seems like the effects or pulses have shot out in random directions and varying power rather than an evenly distributed radial proximity which for some reason IIB assumes it must be. This is perhaps why some cars were melted whilst others were not.

I could also imagine the path of EMP being rather fractal and resembling a fork of lightning, considering its an electro magnetic pulse, rather than it being a even radial effect.
[edit on 20-6-2007 by VicRH]

Nice, I hadn't thought of this angle. A small nuke that emits huge amounts of EMP, some what controled but "spikes" escape the area. Cool.

anyone who says the trees didnt burn are wrong,
in one of the larger pictures two trees were just completely rid of all the leaves

but that doesnt explain why the trees were still standing if the leaves had burnt