WTC Nuclear Demolition - New Video

I had to consider all the following highly potentially involved factors on 9/11/2001, and need more laboratory tested data to form a more accurate, complete conclusion. I originally posted the following in a separate discussion:

Barium, strontium, or other metal nitrates

According to reported testing barium, strontium, and trilium were found in high levels at the WTC. Trilium would indicate radioactive explosion, and barium and strontrium can be indicative of both radioactive or non-radioactive explosion or implosion.

www.wtcnuke.com...

www.globalsecurity.org...

At the Pentagon, radioactivity associated with DU was discovered as far out as 12 miles over DC.

www.americanfreepress.net...

"The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and “detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the alpha.” This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor’s Geiger counter.

“The question is, why?” Folkers said.

If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that allegedly hit the building.

“Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747,” Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing’s 767, told AFP. “Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective.”

The cost effectiveness argument is debatable. A waste product of U.S. nuclear weapons and energy facilities, DU is reportedly provided by the Department of Energy to national and foreign armament companies free of charge.

DU is used in a wide variety of missiles in the U.S. arsenal as an armor penetrator. It is also used in the bunker-buster bombs and cruise missiles. Because no photographic evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon is available to the public, 9-11 skeptics and independent researchers claim something else, such as a missile, struck the Pentagon.

A white flash, not unlike those seen in videos of the planes as they struck the twin towers, occurs when a DU penetrator hits a target.

Photographs from the Pentagon reveal that large round holes were punched through six walls in the three outer rings. The outside wall is 24 inches thick with a six-inch limestone exterior, eight inches of brick and 10 inches of steel reinforced concrete; the other walls are 18 inches thick."

If Shanksville was not tested, there is no way to know if a DU carrying missile or a massive non-radioactive chemical ground explosion left the crater seen in the Shanksville area.

What is for certain, is that something besides unproved asserted claims of commercial jetliners, is not obviously indicative of what may very well have actually impacted three buildings and the ground.

When high levels of barium and strontium, are found in areas of impact, it is highly indicative of either chemical reaction controlled demolition implosion, explosion or atomic energy. Neither of which would be caused by jet fuel or commercial jetliners. It is not a case of whether or not radioactivity is found at sites. Low levels of radioactivity naturally and unnaturally occur in the air, land, and sea. It is the amount that can determine whether or not non-radioactive chemicals or atomic isotopes are deliberately used for explosive or implosive purposes. The highest levels will always be at the point of impact.

A question to those still clinging so steadfastly to the NIST report. What does the NIST report state concerning testing of trilium, barium, strontium, or other metal nitrates? Because with demolitions, highest levels will be read at the supports but not necessarily in the metal that was not cutter charged. That is the steel they had to have to lab analyze the levels for comparison to other steel, air, water, and ground, in and around both twin towers or any other impact areas on 9/11/2001.

Originally posted by elevatedone
Wait a minute.... it just hit me.. OMG, I can't beleive I didn't think of this before.

Controlled demo... don't they bring a building down from the bottom...
meaning... they blow the bottom floors and the building falls on itself?

WTC clearly started collapsing just below the impact area and where the fires where at...

no controlled demo in my opinion...

I agree with you,"Controlled demo",they blow the bottom floors and the building falls on itself" You have seen WTC 7 collapse right?
If not here ya go...

wtc 7 collapse

reply to post by Osyris


Thankyou I will watch it now. Top stuff Osyris.

watchZEITGEISTnow

reply to post by Pilgrum


I'd still like to her it from them. One thing I try to do is never suggest what another person is thinking/was thinking.

watchZEITGEISTnow

reply to post by Black_Fox


No, they do not pull in buildings from the bottom if they want them to drop down into their own footprints as WTC 1, 2 and 7 did. Please see the videos at the website to understand what happens when buildings and other structures are only pulled from the bottom:

www.youtube.com...

Great videos.

The subject of plutonium nukes vs tritium is an interesting one.

I also liked the comparison between Chernobyl and the aftermath of the WTC's.

Anyone that still clings to the belief planes crashing into buildings could have caused the buildings to 1. collapse and 2. pulverise; is seriously deluded.

Mad, your wrong on the count of nuke blasts not being capable of being directed, natural geology can direct a blast just as it dose any other conventional explosion. Any explosion can be directed even nukes, and the whole concept of mini nukes is to concentrate an explosion within a specified range of the weapon to destroy the target but not nearby structures.

The fact is that these buildings exploded from the top down, if the sole source of destruction was due to the planes how come the buildings start to disintergrate where no damage had occured. And if you want to talk physics how do you explain free fall where undamaged sections of the buildings offer no resistance what so ever to slowing of the collapse. As can be plainly seen in all the videos the weight of the building did not completely pancake down. The buildings peeled like a banana, the entire mass spreading over a wide area, this would have delayed the collapse and one would have expected a large portion of the building to be still standing.

No other buildings hit by planes, bombs or anything else have collapsed in such a way as these did, the only explanation therefore is that their collapse was initiated and controlled.

maybe this was planned from the construction...maybe the explosives were always there...

maybe cia or other org did this

all maybes

Strange how after the nuke, TV could still broadcast live from the scene.

Otherwise, you could walk down Wall Street with a geiger counter. That place would still be one hot little berg. The V700 is bulky but well spoken-of.

www.google.com.au... s_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

You could also take nearby soil samples for analysis for traces of explosives/thermite/demolition materials. Unlike nukes, CD/Thermite explosions are chemical reactions and explosive chemical reactions especially on the scale required for CD are never 100% completed. If it was CD, residue would still be there. Microscopic traces will still be there for centuries in fact (if it was CD) in any soil, masonry or lichens which received fallout from the cloud. You’ll need a colleague/collaborator with access to a chem lab/a lab technician, and proper control samples from areas of Manhattan/New York which did not receive fall out from the dust cloud.

Please sell your report as an ebook. I'd buy one. You’d make a fortune.

I doubt, though, that it will do much for the fortunes of the CD faction, except maybe reverse them (even further).


[edit on 28-2-2008 by undermind]

[edit on 28-2-2008 by undermind]

reply to post by undermind


To answer your questions, here is a quick post from another thread.

Originally posted by jthomas
As an aside, I have gone through many of these studies of the dust over the years and have yet to find one that shows any traces of any type of explosives.

Question:

Have you considered ALL possible types of explosives?

Are any of these explosive residues?



I see Potassium & Barium.

Notice how every "chemical" is just listed as it's primary elements. Everything on that list is an element and not a chemical.

How can you be sure that the Potassium and Barium reported wasn't in the form of Potassium Nitrate and Barium Nitrate?

2 chemicals, which I believe, would be explosive residue.

Analytical results are tabulated in Chemistry Table 1, and summarized graphically in Chemistry Figures 1-4. The elements measured by the chemical analyses are those routinely measured by the USGS for studies of rocks, sediments, soils, and environmental samples. Total mercury concentrations have not been measured in the WTC solid samples, but have been measured in leach solutions derived from the samples (see the next section of this report). Quality-assurance, quality control data and information for the analyses are available upon request.

These analytical methods determine the total concentration (in weight percent or parts per million) of each element in any given sample. The samples are likely to contain a mixture of different components, such as particles of gypsum, concrete, steel, etc., that together make up the total concentration of elements.

Remember chemicals and elements are related but very different. Elements make up chemicals. So, to just report on the elements doesn't tell us very much about what chemicals were present.


pubs.usgs.gov...

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Originally posted by elevatedone
Wait a minute.... it just hit me.. OMG, I can't beleive I didn't think of this before.

Controlled demo... don't they bring a building down from the bottom...
meaning... they blow the bottom floors and the building falls on itself?

WTC clearly started collapsing just below the impact area and where the fires where at...

no controlled demo in my opinion...

Does the same apply for WTC7? You know, the collapse that hasn't adequately been explained by NIST, FEMA or seemingly by anyone except of course 'conspiracy theorists' and controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko.

Re the towers: At least 118 firefighters, news crews and various other witnesses all swore they heard and/or felt explosions, some even being more specific and said they believed there were explosives planted in the buildings. Even the FBI were investigating this. Not to mention the molten steel, pulverized concrete and various other anomalies...but that's just my opinion.

[edit on 28-2-2008 by cams]

Originally posted by camsAt least 118 firefighters, news crews and various other witnesses all swore they heard and/or felt explosions, some even being more specific and said they believed there were explosives planted in the buildings. Even the FBI were investigating this.

Yea theres a video available of firefighters standing just outside one of the towers where you can hear (and see for a split second) what sounds like firecrackers going off coupled with flashes going around the building (like a sparkler). Sorry, but planes crashing into buildings dont explain these anomalies nor do they explain molten metal under the buildings after their collapse and dripping from the buildings prior to their collapse.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by dscomp]

check out part 4



It's basically a mash up of different WMD reports and explosives on the day on 9/11. It features former commander of special operations for the US military General Wayne Downing who tells us twice on the day it was WMD (bio, chem or nuclear weapons). Also has one of those pre 9/11 prediction clips from a film made in 1997 called path to paradise, with Ramzi Yousef talking about taking both towers down 4 years before they actually did along side talk from the FBI of explosions at the base of the towers, and the operation being described as a combination of TWA800 and the Murrah bombing.

reply to post by elevatedone
For now, think about this: the people dying of radiation-induced cancers ... www.911researchers.com...