4th Generation MicroNukes Used on WTC1,2 and 7

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Tom Bedlam:

Why would you expect the steel to melt? Come again. 2,800 deg Fahrenheit? Anywhere? Let alone across all 110 floors? How?

Oh, sorry, are you not a "lake of molten steel under the building" theorist?

It gets so hard to keep track.

Please, find me the floor pans from other demolished buildings in photos. You need control data which shows they are always found in other high-rise demolitions and not in the WTC.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless
Tom Bedlam,

Why don't you show us these buildings that pan caked onto them selves from structural failure you speak of instead of just telling us it happened before?
I would really like to see them, I'm sure many of us would like to see the buildings you speak of.

Ah, but there's the rub isn't it? You haven't read my other posts! So, go get a drink, sit down, and reread them. I'll wait...

Ok - you did notice that we're tossing around a non-nuclear alternate that makes a lot more sense than hypothetical anti-matter bombs? Ok then! Your statement is moot, sorry!

Where are those so called buildings that rendered steel columns into dust? Can you please link us to these impossible anomalies you speak of.

Thanks.

The impossible anomaly you can't deal with is the energy level needed to "render steel columns into dust" in terms of a building-wide phenomenon, and the secondary effects of that. Can you please link me to a reputable bit of physics that can describe any nuclear process that can do that? Thanks.

edit:

Oh, by the way, if the inside of the building has been "dustified" by furni-trons, how was it a pancake? There would have been nothing to crash down, right?

Dust or pancakes, can't have both.

[edit on 15-5-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

[edit on 15-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by selfless
Tom bedlam,

I am tired of these flame wars i will not enter into one with you.

Please stop avoiding my request by flaming.

What flaming? If I were flaming you, I'd be nasty instead of just amused.

I'll restate it, very politely.

You quite obviously haven't read the posts leading up to the point you jumped in. Because while I don't actually think any treachery took place, if it did, it would be fun to see if I could come up with a realistic way to do it. One that doesn't involve anti-matter nukes. One that doesn't involve turning the inside of the building to dust in some magical manner.

Since it appears you DON'T want to read the last few pages of the thread before posting non-sequiturs, here's a synopsis:

I'm postulating treachery and evil in the form of some type of demolition charge or charges, just not a nuke. Because the nuke theory has a lot of unexplainable holes when used as a "magic vaporizer". If you want to address a very small nuke (you'd only need the primary from WITW's antimatter bomb for example) used solely for explosive force, that's way different from trying to use it as a cause for dustification.

So again, your request for structural failure pancakes fails because:
1) I'm postulating demolition charge(s), so I don't see your point
2) if you're claiming furni-trons turned the inside of the building to dust, then it can't have pancaked, right? Because there would be no floors left?

[edit on 15-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Oh, come now. In what way is it feeble? You had a 110 story building crunch down on a bunch of Ikea office furniture. Did you expect to see whole desks or something? Not only that, it was buried for weeks and BURNING.

Its feeble because i know you don't honestly believe that, the fires should not even be in the equation anyway! Any fire from that "inferno" would have been put out by all the dust, and there should certainly have been no molten steel.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Face it, the only way NOT to appear like a troll to you would be to agree with you, you've already said you won't discuss anything with "someone you don't know". Meaning, as is pretty obvious, anyone who doesn't agree with your furni-tron radiation theory.

But you have discounted away so much evidence, what makes me want to believe you actually give a damn about the truth. You can't pick and mix. You must take all evidence in consideration at once, and a nuke device is the ONLY theory that fits it ALL.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Go look at other photos of the rubble from collapsed high-rises. The crap in front of Murrah is an example. Rebar, concrete, dusty crap. I don't see desks in the heap. I don't see computers. I don't see baskets of flowers. What I see is construction materials in a big pile. And that was only 7 or 8 stories.

You pick an example for which evidence suggest the use of similar device to what im saying was used on 9/11... nice. The truck bomb could not have damaged the pillar, fact. I hope you agree on that, otherwise there is no hope for you really..

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Here's some photos of other building collapses, some with rubble piles. See all the furniture? No? Just piles of ground up junk? That's what I thought. And none of it 110 stories up.

Really, furniture comes to little pieces in the collapse of even a short building. 110 stories provides a lot of force to destroy contents, especially when it covers them and burns them for weeks.

Yes i see junk in most of the photos.. i see everything i would expect to see. You are trying to prove a point out of nothing.

And again, those fires should not even be there. If you dismiss that fact, then, well..

[edit on 15-5-2007 by shrunkensimon]

Originally posted by selfless
Tom bedlam,

You have avoided the request for the second time now.

You're not even reading my replies, much less the previous posts, right? Very sad.

I will ask a third and final time and if you can't provide me with what i request then i will have to assume that you are not in possession of what i ask for.

Are you sure you're not a bot?

A known case where a building fell onto it's footprint ''pancake'' and melted the steel columns and turned the whole building into dust particles.

And, for the second time, I'm asking you to clearly and explicitly state the mechanism by which you propose "the whole building was turned into dust particles". If you do not reply with the answer, I will assume you do not know.

And for what's probably the third time, maybe more, you are very confused about the entire "structural failure" thing as it applies here, although I have pointed out your oversight. Over. And. Over.

All this caused from structural failure, i would really like to see that.

And for the third time, I have not ever mentioned structural failure. Ever. Should you repeat the request again, I will assume you cannot read.

I am not trying to pick on you Tom, I am genuinely looking for what i requested and i have never been able to find it and i continue to look for it.

I thought maybe you were in possession of what i ask for since you are so sure that a building can collapse in that fashion from structural failure.

Yes, I think you may be a bot. Interesting. IIB, here is a very low level example of your AI in action. I'm not that sure it's a threat, because the interactivity level here is a lot lower than I would have expected.

Alas, since you have, in fact, brought up the bogus strawman of structural failure once more, I will have to assume that in fact you cannot read. Please get your seeing-eye monkey to read my replies to you.

I on the other hand, have never seen that in my life and was not aware that it was physically possible with out explosions.

Now, i hope i was polite enough for you to link me with what i asked for or admit that you don't know where to find it or that it simply does not exist.

Thank you.

We seem to be having two very different conversations here. One in which I am rational, and addressing your points, and one in which you are simply reposting the same phrases over and over without reading what I posted in return.

At least WITW has some level of interaction. So far, you've really astonished me - even endrna will respond to replies most of the time. I award you my Above Top Secret BOT award for this month! Congratulations!

[edit on 15-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

Its feeble because i know you don't honestly believe that, the fires should not even be in the equation anyway! Any fire from that "inferno" would have been put out by all the dust, and there should certainly have been no molten steel.

You guys believe there is, so why not take advantage of it? Do you not believe in the pools of molten metal theory? If so, there is your furniture.

At any rate, it's obviously hot under there, I concede that it is from sat imagery. So pressboard and paper stuff is going to be burned to ash pretty quickly.

Even when it's not, look at the photos I put up links to, I don't see any furniture. I think the argument is bogus, it gets pulverized in the fall. I'm sure there are bits of it in there but it won't be obvious in photos what it is.

But you have discounted away so much evidence, what makes me want to believe you actually give a damn about the truth. You can't pick and mix. You must take all evidence in consideration at once, and a nuke device is the ONLY theory that fits it ALL.

OMG. You can actually say "you can't pick and mix" and then say a nuke explains it ALL? Without your fingers bursting into flame?

You sure seem to be picking and mixing when you pull in the nuke, because there's no getting around the problems if you're claiming it vaporized the contents of the building, and most of the building too, yet did not detonate the building or irradiate Manhattan.

And as for "must take all the evidence into consideration at once", there are a lot of times that you can't force a single explanation onto a sub-problem in a complex analysis. Not ALL concrete need be pulverized by one mechanism, for example. Generally when you start trying to over-scope issues like this, you end up going in circles because you have conflicting evidence. The truth is that in something like this you probably have a big list of "why" you see any one thing you want to focus on.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

You pick an example for which evidence suggest the use of similar device to what im saying was used on 9/11... nice. The truck bomb could not have damaged the pillar, fact. I hope you agree on that, otherwise there is no hope for you really..

Get serious. Are you claiming a nuke for this too? (shakes head)

Same problems. Line up the people dead from radiological problems.

Yes i see junk in most of the photos.. i see everything i would expect to see. You are trying to prove a point out of nothing.

Nope, you were saying that furniture should be evident. It isn't. It's a chaotic heap of crap. These were much smaller collapses, too. Your "where is the office furniture" point seems to be on the rocks.

Originally posted by selfless
You are being very insulting and arrogant.

I won't hold it against you though, i admit that i read like 8 pages of this thread and then i stopped reading because of your arrogant and insulting posts, the thread seemed lost and i didn't see the point in reading anymore.

Since you don't think nuke is a possibility that's fine, i rather stay open minded to all possibilities.

Well, I got a response to that much, anyway.

Again, for the purposes of argument, I'm not proposing structural failure. Really. So there's no point to keep asking for it, because I'm not saying that. It's like using the Chewbacca defense. Yes, I know wookies come from Kashyyk, not Endor.

I'm saying it's not a nuke, because there are way too many missing pieces. Especially if you try to bring in "dustification" as a side effect.

Ill start a thread for my request instead

[edit on 15-5-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Again, for the purposes of argument, I'm not proposing structural failure. Really. So there's no point to keep asking for it, because I'm not saying that. It's like using the Chewbacca defense. Yes, I know wookies come from Kashyyk, not Endor.

I'm saying it's not a nuke, because there are way too many missing pieces. Especially if you try to bring in "dustification" as a side effect.

Stop bull****ing around and answer the questions directly, instead of waffling/blagging your way out of EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

As ive already shown, and others, tell my WHY;

-There were pools of molten metal in the basements for MONTHS
-What could cause the pulverization of the entire buildings except for paper and some steel beams
-How the towers collapsed in FREEFALL speeds/no resistance

The towers literally disintegrated, which is NOT possible without something special. Normal explosives and thermite/ate are not capable of producing the observed effects.

Watch 911 eyewitness. There are 3/4 main explosions per tower, not lots as with a normal demolition which uses hundreds+ charges.

Tell me why there are explosions at all, and how only 3/4 can result in the entire towers disappearing.

STOP DODGING THE QUESTIONS AND GIVE SOME PROPER ANSWERS.

If this were my board you would have been kicked from this thread, because you evidently have NO intention of debating, only trying to sabotage/derail this theory.

Normal people seeking the truth do NOT do this.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uh....Tom? These guys don't want answers, they want sycophants. They want the anti-furniture lasers. Much sexier, much more fun. Occam's Razor just doesn't cut it here.

Drive by shooting by thread troll.

Wow, you've heard of Occam's razor. Well it doesn't cut it here. Facts are nasty things, and Occam's razor isn't used to cut them out of the question, my friend.

Bother to read anything here before posting?

Originally posted by XR500Final
Thermate

Its called thermite THERMITE not thermate, get with the program

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trimmed BIG quote to relevant bit (or two)

Please read ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Note: spelling is not the topic.



[edit on 16/5/07 by masqua]

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
As ive already shown, and others, tell my WHY;

-There were pools of molten metal in the basements for MONTHS
-What could cause the pulverization of the entire buildings except for paper and some steel beams
-How the towers collapsed in FREEFALL speeds/no resistance

The towers literally disintegrated, which is NOT possible without something special. Normal explosives and thermite/ate are not capable of producing the observed effects.

They disintegrated because the building lost structural integrity and collapsed. The why of that is the question.

A lot of your co-theorists believe that normal explosives and thermite/ate (thermate was actually a trade name - therm-8) WERE capable of producing the observed effects, including Jones. I don't agree with the thermite theory due to problems getting it to cut through beams with sufficient speed and uniformity, also thermite sucks at cutting vertical members.

That's a lot of mass falling a long way - there's a lot of energy there ready for grinding stuff to giblets, which you've seen happens even on much shorter buildings. If you look at the rubble pile from any large building collapse, it all looks about the same.

And I'll spit your statement back at you - a nuke is not capable of producing the observed effects. If you think it is, name the top one or two effects you think it produced, and how, and we can discuss it logically. But you can't invoke mystery - no argument by hand-waving "it just did".

Tell me why there are explosions at all, and how only 3/4 can result in the entire towers disappearing.

Because, at least for the purposes of discussion, I'm assuming that there were devices placed in the building for that purpose. And it disappeared because it was rendered mechanically unstable and collapsed into a pile.

STOP DODGING THE QUESTIONS AND GIVE SOME PROPER ANSWERS.

If this were my board you would have been kicked from this thread, because you evidently have NO intention of debating, only trying to sabotage/derail this theory.

Normal people seeking the truth do NOT do this.

I don't at all believe I've been dodging questions. I challenge you to present your opinions on what EXACTLY you are claiming happened, and HOW. Not "a nuke did it because that's the only thing I can think of and they're big and scary".

Without that there can be no discussion at the level you suddenly appear to desire, because I don't know which sub-sect of the nuclear 911 religion you are. And you again demonstrate that you are not tolerant of differing opinions - this is what, the third time?

So list out your top one or two claims, every one of you is different. Just the first and mainmost one or two - if you think a nuke magically turned the entire contents of the building to dust, say it, and how you think that happens, otherwise I have no clue where you're coming from.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Tom, your on ignore after your last pathetic attempt to explain away the "collapses" due to structural failure. Its already been established that fire could NOT have caused the "collapses".

Originally posted by gottago

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uh....Tom? These guys don't want answers, they want sycophants. They want the anti-furniture lasers. Much sexier, much more fun. Occam's Razor just doesn't cut it here.

Drive by shooting by thread troll.

Wow, you've heard of Occam's razor. Well it doesn't cut it here. Facts are nasty things, and Occam's razor isn't used to cut them out of the question, my friend.

Bother to read anything here before posting?

Read plenty. That's the problem. There's some weird and wooly ideas floating about that certain posters have a deathgrip on and woe to those that suggest that those ideas are out there. The whole 'mini-nukes' thing going on here is a sterling example.

Facts are wonderful things and I guess you didn't understand that the whole Occam's Razor reference was meant to point out how unbelievably convoluted the 'theories' are getting. On the whole, they're just so far out there, it's unreal.

Someone says that nukes are the only possible answer and doesn't want to address that simple forces like gravity and steel strength being reduced by exposure to fire are enough to explain the observed pancaking post-crash, I guess that's his privilege. But watching Simon in action, it's clear that he doesn't want a discussion as evidenced by his 'discussion' with Tom Bedlam.

Originally posted by seridium

Originally posted by XR500Final
Thermate

Its called thermite THERMITE not thermate, get with the program

Note: spelling is not the topic.

[edit on 16/5/07 by masqua]

Also aren't these actually two different substances or versions of each other? Aren't there debates over whether it's thermite or thermate? I find either a better explanation than nukes.

I'm sure this has been asked many times but I didn't read the whole thread. What are the expected fallout effects of the device(s) under consideration? Radiation? Any studies done by all the NY 911 Truth people? Why not confirm the theory? Does radiation fade to normal levels in six years? Get someone out there with a Geiger counter or show me how this evidence too was covered up.

Again sorry if already covered. All accusations that I didn't read the thread are substantiated.

[edit on 16-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Someone says that nukes are the only possible answer and doesn't want to address that simple forces like gravity and steel strength being reduced by exposure to fire are enough to explain the observed pancaking post-crash, I guess that's his privilege. But watching Simon in action, it's clear that he doesn't want a discussion as evidenced by his 'discussion' with Tom Bedlam.

Its already been established that fire alone could not have caused the collapses. You only need look to WTC 7 to realise the obviousness of the truth.

I don't want a discussion with Tom, because he evidently has nothing to offer me. All he has done is simply belitted everything i've said, whilst giving such pathetic answers to my questions.. why should i waste my energy on him when there are others in this thread who are more willing to discuss the theory.

You and Tom have so much in common. You continuely state the nuke theory is bull, but at the same time keep proposing the idea of fire/gravity driven collapses, which has already been established to be FALSE. Even NIST said this themselves for crying out loud.

The buildings fell at freefall speed. The idea of a pancake collapse is absolutely absurd, and if you buy into it, then there is no hope for you. Best go back to fighting on the front line