It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 08:03 AM

Originally posted by jfj123
Studies are still being done on exposure and possible ecological consequences from 3 mile island, bikini atoll, nevada nuclear tests, etc.

That is true but how long ago was that? C'mon technology had accelerated way beyond those tests.

Also they are the ones we know about. Do you think we know all that they have and tested? People here do not believe there is an ABL. Don't underestimate what they have.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not fully convinced it was a nuke yet; there are things that point to it though. Something caused the rapid expulsion of the buildings outer structure that was way beyond the energy gravity would supply. Something appears to be sublimating pieces of steel…

And it even looks similar to a nuke going off.

But I try not to worry too much about what was used because we can only guess. The important thing is realizing and understanding that the towers could not have collapsed the way they did from the planes impacts or the resultant fires, and that they had to have had 'help'.

[edit on 22/8/2007 by ANOK]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:08 AM

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes, I am sure radiation would be one result from a nuclear reaction. It's part of the reaction. You can clean it up, but you can't remove it.

You most certainly can, and that's exactly what would have happened if any nuclear devices were used, too, because all of that debris was hauled out before any tests were done on it to look for radioactive isotopes. If a small nuclear device were used to instantly compromise the core, then only a portion of the debris would be irradiated, and this could represent the bulk of the radiation released.

Also, don't forget about the EMP that would fry electronics in the area, permanently leaving physical proof of a nuclear explosion.

You keep saying this but won't quantify it. EMP is not a constant effect, with the exact same magnitude for every bomb. It varies. The EMP released from a very small nuclear bomb would also be very small, and it would be distributed over a large area very quickly, minimizing the damage.

EMP bursts can be measured in Teslas, just like the speed of a car can be measured in mph or kph. Cars don't all go the same top speed all the time, so do EMP bursts not destroy everything across a state every time there is any burst at all. Do you understand this?

The amount of amperage that needs to be inducted to "fry" any given device can also be measured too, by wattage ratings for components or etc., and it varies also. You might just pick up static on your radio for a split second, and then that's that, and the radio works fine again afterwards, because it simply didn't pick up enough current to fry any of the internal components. You have to remember that the buildings themselves were steel.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:00 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11

"Bali" is a reference to the Bali bombing. Most of us are probably Americans and have no idea what ThomasT is saying. No, it's not what horses eat. You're probably thinking of "bale", like "bale of hay".

[edit on 20-8-2007 by bsbray11]

So Bali was also a black flag op conducted by the US shadow govt. or was it a small nuke? I think the reference to horse feed was sarcasm. One can get sarcastic becuase everything ultimately leads to a shadow government. I suppose the Korean hostages in Afghanistan have actually been kidnapped by CIA.......

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:34 PM

Originally posted by jaehkimx
So Bali was also a black flag op conducted by the US shadow govt. or was it a small nuke?

I wouldn't know. You want to make snide remarks, I won't give a damn. You want to look at what the bomb did in Bali, that's something half-worthy of discussion. You can run your mouth all day; words are free.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:53 PM
Some information about nukes:

If a nuclear weapon explodes on or close to the ground, EMP is generated over a relatively small area. However, according to some calculations, the EMP could be conducted by subterranean electrical transmission lines, resulting in loss of electrical power beyond the immediate zone of the most intense destruction. Moreover, these calculations also indicate that depending on the weapon’s yield, EMP effects could radiate significantly beyond the zone of heaviest blast damage, potentially leading to loss of electrical communications equipment for emergency first responders stationed within miles of ground zero, unless this equipment was properly electrically shielded a. of time. A nuclear explosion at high altitudes, unlikely to be achievable by terrorists, can generate EMP over a radius of hundreds of miles.

small particles of radioactive "dust" that settle back to earth over a period of minutes to weeks. Radioactive materials pushed high into the atmosphere by the force of a nuclear explosion can travel hundreds of miles before returning (falling) to earth, causing radioactive contamination across thousands of square miles. The intensity and duration of contamination from fallout vary with the size of the nuclear weapon and how close it exploded to the ground. Weapons detonated at or close to ground level generate the most fallout. For two days after a Hiroshima-sized explosion at ground level, anyone within about 1.7 miles (2.75 km) of ground zero could be exposed to a 500 rem radiation dose from fallout (resulting in a 50 percent chance of death).

as taken from

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:58 PM
The prompt radiation from a Hiroshima-sized explosion would expose people within about 1.3 miles (2 km) of ground zero to a 500 rem dose of radiation, creating a 50 percent chance of death from radiation sickness, radiation burns, and other health effects within a few days or weeks.

the temperature at the point of explosion ("ground zero") may exceed 100 million degrees Centigrade (°C). This is about 10 times the temperature of the surface of the sun. At these temperatures, matter cannot exist in its normal solid, liquid, or gaseous state. Instead, atoms are stripped of all their electrons and converted to ionized plasma.

Even from considerable distances, the heat from a nuclear explosion can vaporize objects and living things, ignite combustible material, and cause painful or fatal burns on people and animals. Depending on environmental factors, such as building materials and weather conditions, at the explosion site, the heat can also create a "firestorm" of flames and air heated to over 1000°C, hot enough to melt glass and many metals. In a Hiroshima-sized explosion, this firestorm could incinerate everything within about 1.2 miles (1.9 km) from ground zero.

You can spin this anyway you like. I don't care if you minimize the size of the nuke to minimize the radiation, emp, etc. they still happen and are measurable. If there is no radiation at ground zero WTC then NO NUKE. You can't deny that.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 10:10 PM
Good Lord, you people are dumb. It's a good thing I know some folks down at military projects, not that you lazy folks couldn't look it up yourself. Here are some basic things on EMPs

A nuclear explosion of the size to be able to knock out an entire building of re inforced steel would be a DEVASTATING EMP. A regular nuke creates an EMP many miles longer then the explosion effect

An EMP INCREASES in effect as per height. Basically meaning an EMP at the level of the WTC explosion would have knocked out the entire Island.

An EMP destroyes all high tech computing devices. There were no shut down in near by structures, no choppers went down, no failures of equipment of nearby cell phones, etc.

An EMP has been shown to have the "possibility" of explosing near by cars and other gas realated objects. No cars exploded.

An EMP is very easy to see in terms of effects.

Here are pics. At this distance these cameras would have stoped working:

Not to mention they would have stopped working before the collapse of the towers, and then after.


High Altitude Burst. A high altitude burst is one in which the weapon is exploded at such an altitude (above 30 km) that initial soft x-rays generated by the detonation dissipate energy as heat in a much larger volume of air molecules. There the fireball is much larger and expands much more rapidly. The ionizing radiation from the high altitude burst can travel for hundreds of miles before being absorbed. Significant ionization of the upper atmosphere (ionosphere) can occur. Severe disruption in communications can occur following high altitude bursts. They also lead to generation of an intense electromagnetic pulse (EMP) which can significantly degrade performance of or destroy sophisticated electronic equipment. There are no known biological effects of EMP; however, indirect effects may result from failure of critical medical equipment.

But think of it this way.

Height of wtc:
1368 Feet
0.41696 Kilometers

Meaning that it is around

.8% of a km, meaning that it would have an EMP range of around
625 Ft

But I suck at math, and could be very wrong. But essentally, the EMP would equal around half the height of the WTC off by around 200 ft give or take. This is a rough estimate, but bassically everyone under the WTC would have their cameras instantly turned off and all choppers in the realitive area would have a kind of flickering of their effect.

Just my 2 cents

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Gorman91]
Basically, the evidence tends to no nuke. But it is not out of the question.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Gorman91]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
A nuclear explosion of the size to be able to knock out an entire building of re inforced steel would be a DEVASTATING EMP.

Yet you believe asymmetrical damage and sporadic fires did?

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 06:52 AM
There is nothing to believe or disbelieve. Belief is an idea not necessarily rooted in fact.

The facts are:

MEANS NO NUKE. This is not a guess. These are facts that are not disputable unless you can show EMP damage and Radiation. If you can't show this, there was no nuke.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:55 AM
reply to post by jfj123

Hey I'm not saying there was a nuke, just that some things do look suspiciously nukeish...

We're just discussing it, no need to get shirty about it.

And again you are just assuming that there would have to be an EMP and radiation. Are you an expert on nuke technology and all the latest classified research? I very much doubt it, so making a claim when you really have no clue is not helping the discussion. It just shows your desperation for the official story to be true.

A mini nuke, like the ones designed to take down structures, would not produce massive amounts of EMP or radiation like the mega tonnage jobs you're used to seeing.

This one is only 0.01 to 0.02 kilotons and weighs less than 163lbs.


How much EMP and radiation would that produce?

But anyway what actually was used is not worth my time to argue really. It doesn't matter what was used, what's in question is the government version of what happened, and I believe they are lying. Plane impacts and fire will not cause a building to explode as it globally collapses to it's foundations.
Something else was used to help them along...

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 08:27 AM
Well it also looks like it could have been the USS Enterprise (united space ship...not US navy) firing a photon torpedo from orbit around Terra. Actually, photon torpedo is more likely than a nuke.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 11:59 AM

Originally posted by jfj123
This is not a guess. These are facts

You don't know what you're talking about. You still refuse to give me a figure in Teslas of the EMP you're imagining wiping out Manhattan. Hell, why not the world? You might as well say any EMP from a nuke would destroy the planet. Not even going to get into the specifics of the radiation issue if you don't even get that much.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:27 PM
I have posted information regarding EMP. Look for it.

Also, are you saying it is possible to have a nuclear explosion with NO EMP effects and NO RADIATION?

If you believe this is possible, all you need to do is research the basics and you and everyone else will understand that these items are part of any nuclear reaction. If you don't have these items, you don't have a nuclear reaction. So even if EMP and radiation were minimized, THEY ARE STILL THERE.

You are completely ignoring the fact that regardless of size, these 2 items are part of ANY nuclear reaction. This is not debatable. This is science. If you don't believe me, research it for yourself and you'll find the EXACT SAME INFORMATION.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by jfj123
Also, are you saying it is possible to have a nuclear explosion with NO EMP effects and NO RADIATION?

I believe he's asking you to quantify the EMP and radiation from mini nukes. Not that there isn't any. Just my take on it.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:49 PM
I will do my best to get some actual numbers together for emp and radiation. My point is it can't be a nuke because there must be emp and radiation evidence if a nuke of ANY SIZE went off. So in actuality, the emp and rad numbers are almost irrelevant.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 09:38 PM

Originally posted by jfj123
I have posted information regarding EMP. Look for it.

You gave me figures in Teslas or v/m? I don't see them anywhere.

Also, are you saying it is possible to have a nuclear explosion with NO EMP effects and NO RADIATION?

Have you even been reading my posts these past two pages or whatever it's been? I don't think you have.

The figures I've seen for nuclear reactions with yields in the megatons are around 50,000 v/m. When you go from megatons, to tons (to fit inside the WTC), then the flux density is going to drop accordingly, in some kind of proportion. If it's even linear, then it's going to be a tiny EMP compared to the big bombs.

I'm also going to look into EMP propagation later tonight to see how it diminishes over distances. Sound and many other phenomena spread out and dissipate in intensity at an exponential rate ('inverse square law'), and I would imagine EMPs would dissipate similarly. Not to mention the entire building itself is constructed of steel, concrete, and aluminum, all of which will conduct electricity at high enough voltages. If the current is absorbed, then it isn't going to be used elsewhere (ie to overload components in various electronics on ground-level). That close to the blast is where the highest voltages would be present in the first place. After that it diminishes rapidly with distance.

If Damocles is reading this, can you give a yield based on the diameter of the blast? For example, what could we estimate the yield to be of a device that has a blast radius 1/4 to 1/2 the width of the core structure? If I can find a rough relation between yield and the intensity of the EMP, then maybe I can give a ballpark figure of what a theoretical mini-nuke would produce. Then it's just a matter of figuring out how long it would take that energy to be absorbed into the environment, which is where all the steel and aluminum in the buildings would come into play up close to the blast.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by bsbray11]


posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:36 AM
Question: Has any of the ground zero workers shown signs of radiation sickness? Yes , no radiation samples were taken of the debreis hauled away ,but the workers would surely show signs of radiation sickness I would think working on top of it day after day.

Down another line...Ok so no test were done on the debris.....What about the heavy equipment there.....from the cranes and trackhoes to the dump trucks..Any tests there? Are those peices of equipment still in use? If they were contaminated by radiation...surely they still would not be roaming the streets. And if they were...doesnt NYC have radiation detectors around for homeland security?....Wouldnt they pick up higher than average readings when one of these pieces of equipment past by?

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:41 AM
One thing about radioactive isotopes is if their halflife is in hours and not years, They may not have been able to find any. Also, what types of radiation are looked for? Gamma rays, Alpha rays, Beta rays? There's different types. And these different types have different strengths. It's been a while but I believe apha rays can't even penetrate paper. Beta rays can't penetrate skin. Gamma rays are the things they test for. I could be wrong, this is off the top of my ..

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:01 PM

Originally posted by six
Question: Has any of the ground zero workers shown signs of radiation sickness?

Civilian medic Indira Singh said during a Guns and Butter interview that the people she and the people she knew at Ground Zero suffered horribly from being there, with people getting ulcers and losing hair that had worked in the debris piles.

BF: At one point, I noticed that you testified as to your physical symptoms and how this had affected your health. What did happen to you, just on a physical level?

IS: It’s an interesting question because I was in excellent physical condition for my age and gender and I was training for an 8,000m mountain climb, so aerobically I knew I could be up at 19 – 20,000 feet, no oxygen, doing a fair amount of aerobic activity… what happened to me is—what happened to all of us basically, and it doesn’t sound very nice, but this is what happened—we had sores—some Firefighters I know still have these horrific sores all over their body, our hair fell out, eye infections, shortness of breath, Adult-onset Asthma, chronic coughs, tiredness, extreme fatigue, cardiac symptoms, heart palpitations where you never had any before, irritability, a lot of symptoms that were consistent with neurotoxic poisoning, those were just the physical symptoms, and in some cases people reported that their hair fell out and even their dental work fell out.

She went on to say that she was told these things were because of the small particles in the air (which were also record-breaking in the number of very fine particles), which would probably explain most/all of the lung-related problems, but I fail to see how hair falling out and dental work falling out line up, and Indira says herself that overall, the symptoms are consistent with radiation poisoning.

Btw, she wasn't in the least suggesting there was a nuclear reaction at Ground Zero. This is just her reporting her experiences as she had them.

Any tests there?

None that I'm aware of. They would probably not be irradiated, man. Considering maybe only 1/10th of the debris would have been exposed to radiation, if that, then you have 1/10th of the debris with random radioactive isotopes in it.

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 04:25 PM
actually, radiation contamination would continue for YEARS, not hours. I have posted information in previous pages regarding fallout.

Not only would ground zero workers exhibit radiation sickness but the people who arrived shortly after the impact, breathing the air, would be dead en masse. Were there a large number of deaths within weeks after impact due to radiation illness??

There would be radioactive contamination everywhere around ground zero after the explosion. You see all the dust in the air on the videos??? all that dust settled somewhere and it would have been contaminated with radiation.

I fail to understand how people are not getting this ?????

new topics

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in